View clinical trials related to Atrioventricular Block.
Filter by:Although emerging evidence demonstrated that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising alternative for patients with either a bradycardia or a heart failure pacing indication. However, a direct comparison of the safety, efficacy and LV systolic synchrony between LBBP and RVP regimens was rare. In this study, the investigators aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between these two pacing methods for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). The investigators focused on AVB patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantations from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital.
The purpose of the study is implantation of a Pacemaker at 30 days for occurrence of a high-grade conduction disorder per- or post-procedure (yes/no)
Patients with successful left bundle branch pacing in our center were included in this study from April 2018 to December 2019. Baseline data was collected, and pacing parameters, ECG and echocardiographic results were analyzed during 3 years follow-up. According to whether or not a potential was recorded and the specific potential characteristics at implantation, the patients were divided into 3 groups: left bundle branch potential group; Purkinje potential group; and no-potential group. During the 3 years follow-up, the investigators collected the ECG、UCG and pacemaker parameters to analyze.
PROTECT-SYNC study is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 7 medical centers across Republic of Korea will enroll 450 patients during 2 years of enrollment period, and followed for 2 years of follow-up period. The purpose of this study to compare the clinical outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) compared to Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP) in bradyarrhythmia patients who require high burden of ventricular pacing (>40%).
With the aging of society, the use of cardiac pacing in patients with irreversible bradycardia is increasingly widespread. As early as the 1950s, right ventricular pacing (RVP) began to be used in patients with atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome, but in fact such pacing could cause ventricular asynchrony, which could lead to long-term myocardial perfusion injury, valvular regurgitation, heart failure, and increased risk of ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. The latest guideline recommended reducing the proportion of right ventricular pacing. Additionally, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF ≤ 35%) and complete left bundle branch block, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) has been recommended to improve cardiac function, but only about 30% of patients benefit from it, which may be related to poor left ventricular pacing site and myocardial scarring. In theory, His bundle pacing (HBP) compared with RVP can reduce the risk of functional tricuspid regurgitation when the lead position lies on the atrial side of the tricuspid valve, which may improve the right heart function and pulmonary artery pressure. In 2021, Domenico Grieco et al. explored the effect of HBP on right heart function. After 6 months of follow-up, it was found that HBP improved right heart function and pulmonary artery pressure compared with RVP. At present, there are few discussions on the effect of physiological pacing on right ventricular hemodynamics, and the sample size is small. Internationally, the discussion of the assessment of hemodynamics is limited to non-invasive evaluation (such as echocardiography, ECG, SPECT) The gold standard for right heart hemodynamics evaluation is the measurement of invasive right heart catheterization, and there has been no relevant research so far, so the investigators further designed a study of the effect of physiological pacing on hemodynamics.
This study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized study to assess if cardiac dysfunction patients with LVEF <50% and the estimated ventricular pacing percentage >40% with LBBP have the non-inferior safety and efficacy than CRT on patients' cardiac function and prognosis
The purpose of the study is to investigate the superiority of chronic left bundle branch area pacing compared to traditional right ventricular (RV) septal pacing in patients with high-grade conduction disease after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In this investigator initiated, multicenter, prospective, double-blinded, crossover study, chronic left bundle branch area pacing will be compared to chronic right ventricular septal pacing using echocardiographic measures of left ventricular systolic function in patients with a high cumulative ventricular pacing burden after TAVR.
A multicenter, prospective, randomized study in a 1:1 ratio, single-blind with double-blind evaluation to evaluate the superiority of physiological ventricular pacing (proposed modality) vs. managed ventricular pacing (control) for prevention of persistent AF (PeAF) occurrence in patients with prolonged atrioventricular interval (PR≥180 ms) and indication for pacing: sinus node disease and/or paroxysmal type 1 or 2-second degree AV block.
The purpose of the BIO-CONDUCT study is to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the BIOTRONIK Solia S pacing lead when implanted in the left bundle branch (LBB) area. Safety will be assessed by evaluating serious adverse device effects that occur through 3 months post-implant. Efficacy will be assessed by evaluating implant success rate.
Prospective, randomized, single center clinical trial to compare the outcome of left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular apical pacing in patients with higher degree atrio-ventricular block and a normal left ventricular function after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.