View clinical trials related to Atrioventricular Block.
Filter by:The goal of this observational study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients undergoing permanent cardiac pacing and to compare procedural efficacy and safety of different implantation approaches in the clinical practice of the participating centres. The contribution of non-fluoroscopic anatomical and electrophysiological reconstruction systems to device implantation procedures will also be evaluated. Participants [patients over 18 years old with an indication to receive a definitive pacemaker/intracardiac defibrillator implant] will receive a permanent cardiac pacing implant as requested according to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines; the investigators will evaluate procedural efficacy and safety of different implantation approaches.
Single-center randomized trial in patients with pacing indication (AV block) after TAVI (transfemoral aortic valve implantation) and LVEF> 50%, that aims to study the percentage of patients who improve at 12 months in a combined clinical endpoint.
LEAP-CAR will evaluate the benefit of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), comparing to conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP), in preventing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients undergoing pacemaker implant for advanced (2° or 3° degree) atrioventricular block, with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >45%. LEAP-CAR is a randomized, prospective, double blind clinical trial.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of life, patient acceptance and exercise capacity with leadless compared to transvenous pacing in elderly patients with new-onset high-grade atrioventricular block. Consecutive patients with high-grade atrioventricular black and preserved sinus node function with indication for permanent pacemaker implantation according to the latest european guidelines, are included in a prospective, partly patient and accessor blinded and partly open label, 1:1 randomized combined parallel and cross-over trial to implantation with 1) a Micra AV Transcathter Pacing System or 2) an Azure XT DR dual chamber pacemaker.
The TELE-SPACER study is a multicenter, noncommercial, physician-initiated, proof-of-concept, prospective, randomized, controlled, unblinded clinical trial and registry designed to compare two methods of treatment of patients with functional Atrio-Ventricular Block (AVB): the guidelines-recommended elective pacemaker (PM) therapy vs cardiovascular autonomic tests (CAT), electrophysiologic assessment (EPS) with referral to cardioneuroablation (CNA) and reevaluation of indications for PM therapy. The main questions TELE-SPACER aims to answer are: - Can the investigators successfully treat functional AVB without implantable device (PM)? - Can the investigators prove the feasibility and safety and demonstrate non-inferiority of CNA procedure in patients with functional AVB, avoiding long-term permanent pacing, its limitations, complications and costs ? The TELE-SPACER trial will validate the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations (level C of evidence: expert opinion) for elective PM implantation and will introduce CNA as effective treatment in the functional AVB patient population. Functional AVB - defined as a persistent or paroxysmal AVB with a positive results of atropine test
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)
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.
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.