Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by interventricular conduction delay: How to choose between biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing

Abstract Background Biventricular pacing (BIV) is the gold standard for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Thirty percent of patients do not respond to CRT. Conduction system pacing (CSP) represents a viable alternative. Interventricular conduction delay (IVCD), as electrical desynchrony marker, is a CRT response predictor. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of CRT responders by selecting the best approach between BIV and CPS based on intraoperative IVCD measurement in patients with HFrEF and LBBB. Methods Ninety‐six patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a standard BIV group(control group, CG) or a group where the CRT approach was determined based on IVCD evaluation(study group, SG). If the right ventricular sensed electrogram (RVs)–left ventricular sensed electrogram (LVs) interval was ≥100 ms, the lead was left in its original position; otherwise, the LV lead was removed, and CSP was performed instead. Clinical, EKG, and echocardiographic features have been assessed pre‐ and 6 months post‐implant. Echocardiographic and clinical responder were evaluated. Results Thirty‐seven percent of patients in the SG underwent CSP, as the operative algorithm. The incidence of CRT responders was significantly higher in the SG (echocardiographic criterion: 92.5% vs. 69.8%, p:.009; clinical criterion 87.5% vs. 62.8%, p:.014). The SG showed a significantly greater difference in EF between pre‐ and post‐implant as well as reduced end‐diastolic and systolic volumes. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis indicated that enrollment in the SG was the only factor associated with CRT response. Conclusion Intraoperative assessment of IVCD could help determine the optimal CRT approach between BIV and CSP, leading to a significant improvement in the rate of CRT responders.