Clinical Prospective ranDomized Trial to Evaluate the Non-inferiority of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Vs Cardiac ResynchronIzatioN Therapy With ECG guIded AV Optimization
NCT ID: NCT07107048
Last Updated: 2025-08-06
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
194 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-10-30
2027-10-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Recently left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) or left bundle optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy has been proposed as a rescue therapy for failed or unsuccessful CRT. LBBAP has been also proposed as a physiological pacing modality for patient who need permanent ventricular pacing as an alternative to conventional right ventricular pacing.
Several observational studies have demonstrated the feasibility of this technique due to an ease procedure, stable and appropriate electrical measurements and clinical benefit in terms of patients outcomes.
Furthermore, It is well known that an optimized AV delay (AVD) can improve clinical outcomes preserving a physiological diastolic function.
In clinical practice several different AVD optimization methods have been developed in the last few years.
The majority of them use the intracardiac electrograms during the implant procedure to evaluate QRS duration and AV delay or at follow-up through echocardiographic measurements.
Aim of our pilot project is to assess the non-inferiority of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with ECG/Echo guided AV optimization.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block
NCT05722379
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Using Conventional Stylet-driven Pacemaker Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
NCT05365568
Acute Response to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With SyncAV
NCT06436053
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With Ejection Fraction Below Normal
NCT06148571
Left Septal Pacing or Left Bundle Branch Pacing to Avoid Left Ventricle Systolic Dysfunction
NCT06707662
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Recently left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) or left bundle optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy has been proposed as a rescue therapy for failed or unsuccessful CRT. LBBAP has been also proposed as a physiological pacing modality for patient who need permanent ventricular pacing as an alternative to conventional right ventricular pacing.
Several observational studies have demonstrated the feasibility of this technique due to an ease procedure, stable and appropriate electrical measurements and clinical benefit in terms of patients outcomes.
Furthermore, LBBAP provides a fast activation of the left ventricle and has shown to maintain electrical synchrony shortening the QRS and providing the correction of left bundle branch block (LBBB) by pacing beyond the block.
Despite of that, it is common to find right bundle branch block (RBBB) at the electrocardiography (ECG) that represents a delay in the RV activation and interventricular dissynchrony.
This finding in patients with heart failure may worsen their conditions as shown in literature.
RBBB may be minimized by the resynchronization of right ventricle and left ventricle with an adequate time sequence or by the correct optimization of the atrioventricular delay for both CRT and LBBAP in order to enable fusion with intrinsic RV conduction in patients without a complete AV block.
It is well known that an optimized AV delay (AVD) can improve clinical outcomes preserving a physiological diastolic function.
In clinical practice several different AVD optimization methods have been developed in the last few years.
The majority of them use the intracardiac electrograms during the implant procedure to evaluate QRS duration and AV delay or at follow-up through echocardiographic measurements.
Among all the echocardiographic modalities, the mitral inflow velocity time integral (VTI) is a surrogate for LV filling volume assuming a constant mitral valve area. Mitral inflow is dependent on timing of both left atrial and left ventricular systole, and interatrial and interventricular conduction delays will affect optimal timing of ventricular pacing.
Aim of our pilot project is to assess the non-inferiority of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with ECG/Echo guided AV optimization.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
LBBAP
Patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implantation
Pacemaker and defibrillator
Patients will be randomly assigned at enrollment (1:1) to undergo either LBBAP or CRT with biventricular stimulation. The devices implanted maybe defibrillators or pacemekers.
CRT Biv
Patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing
Pacemaker and defibrillator
Patients will be randomly assigned at enrollment (1:1) to undergo either LBBAP or CRT with biventricular stimulation. The devices implanted maybe defibrillators or pacemekers.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Pacemaker and defibrillator
Patients will be randomly assigned at enrollment (1:1) to undergo either LBBAP or CRT with biventricular stimulation. The devices implanted maybe defibrillators or pacemekers.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patients with Left Branch Block (LBBB) (2021 ESC/REVERSE. Glickson et al \_EHJ 2021):
* Patients over 18 years of age.
Exclusion Criteria
* 3rd degree AV Block
* Participants with angiographic evidence of coronary disease who are candidates for coronary revascularization and are likely to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary, intervention in the next three (3) months.
* Enzyme-positive myocardial infarction within the past three (3) months prior to enrollment.
* Coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (balloon and/or stent angioplasty) within the past three (3) months prior to enrollment.
* Reversible non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (e.g., acute viral myocarditis).
* Participants with Chagas disease, cardiac sarcoidosis or amyloidosis.
* Expected to receive left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation within 6 months.
* Participants with severe valvular disease (e.g., aortic stenosis).
* Have a life expectancy of less than 12 months.
* Participants with irreversible brain damage from preexisting cerebral disease.
* Participants with a contrast dye allergy unable or unwilling to undergo pretreatment with steroids and/or diphenhydramine.
* Long-lasting or permanent atrial fibrillation
* Participants participating in any other interventional cardiovascular clinical trial.
* Participants who would be unable to return for follow-up visits due to the distance from the clinic.
* Participants who do not anticipate being a resident of the area for the scheduled duration of the trial.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
National association Cardiovascular innovation
UNKNOWN
Leonardo Calò, MD
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Leonardo Calò, MD
Prof.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Policlinico Casilino
Rome, , Italy
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
v1 7jul25
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.