<?xml version="1.0"?>
<metadata xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><dc:title>Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization</dc:title><dc:creator>Žižek,	David	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Žlahtič,	Tadej	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Mrak,	Miha	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Ivanovski,	Maja	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Štublar,	Jernej	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Zavrl,	Dinko	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Peterlin,	Jakob	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Cvijić,	Marta	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Zupan Mežnar,	Anja	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>cardiac resynchronization therapy</dc:subject><dc:subject>biventricular pacing</dc:subject><dc:subject>left bundle branch area pacing</dc:subject><dc:subject>left bundle branch block</dc:subject><dc:subject>conduction system pacing</dc:subject><dc:description>Aims: There are limited prospective randomized studies comparing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and biventricular (BiV) pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The study tested whether LBBAP is non-inferior to BiV pacing in patients with Class I indication for CRT. Methods and results: The CSP-SYNC study is an investigator-initiated, randomized, single-centre study. Sixty-two patients were randomized 1:1 to LBBAP or BiV. The primary study endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in echo and clinical parameters after 6 months and 12 months. Thirty-one patients were randomized to each arm. Most patients were males (71%), and 32% had ischaemic cardiomyopathy. At 6 months, similar improvement of LVEF was observed in the LBBAP group compared to the BiV group [14.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.2–16.8) in LBBAP vs. 8.5% (95% CI: 5.6–11.2) in BiV] with a mean intergroup difference of 5.6% (95% CI: 1.6–9.5; P &lt; 0.001 for non-inferiority). Both groups showed comparable decrease in LVESV [−64 mL (95% CI: −78 to −50) vs. −40 mL (95% CI: −54 to −25) respectively, mean difference −24 mL (CI 95%: −44 to −4); P &lt; 0.001 for non-inferiority] and changes in 6-min walk test (P &lt; 0.001 for non-inferiority) and NYHA class (P = 0.011 for non-inferiority). Temporal trends of LV remodelling and heart failure hospitalization rates were also comparable. Conclusion: In patients with a Class I indication for CRT, LBBAP was non-inferior to BiV pacing in improving LVEF and provided similar structural and electrical remodelling.</dc:description><dc:date>2025</dc:date><dc:date>2026-01-05 15:15:13</dc:date><dc:type>Neznano</dc:type><dc:identifier>24958</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>UDK: 616.1</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>ISSN pri članku: 1532-2092</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>DOI: 10.1093/europace/euaf192</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISS_ID: 258720259</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></metadata>
