View clinical trials related to Bundle-Branch 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.
The purpose of this study is to show that Electrocardiogram Ambulatory Monitoring-guided strategy is superior to ElectroPhysiological Study on the rate of alive patients with an appropriate Pacemaker implantation/non-implantation, at 12 months after randomization, in patients with New Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.
The goal of this phase IV, randomized, controlled and open-label study is to assess the efficacy of peri-procedure glucocorticoid treatment in the prevention of conduction abnormalities and the need for pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing transaortic valve replacement compared to placebo. Participants randomized to the intervention group will receive a single dose of intravenous Methylprednisolone 7 mg/kg/day on the day of the procedure (1 hour before), followed by 15 mg/12 hours of daily Prednisone for 5 days. The primary endpoint is a composite of permanent pacemaker implantation and the occurrence of new conduction abnormalities (any-degree AV block, bundle branch block, or non-specific intraventricular conduction disorder) at discharge, at 30 days and 1 year.
This study will address whether acute adaptive RV pacing in sinus rhythm patients with severe LV systolic dysfunction and RBBB is superior to no ventricular pacing, and is as effective as echocardiographically optimized biventricular (BIV) pacing based on Medtronic ECG belt and cardiac performance as assessed by the echocardiographic parameters of RV and LV function.
"Chang Gung ECG Abnormality Detection Software" is a is an artificial intelligence medical signal analysis software that detect whether patients have abnormal ECG signals of 14 diseases by static 12-lead ECG. The 14 diseases were - Long QT syndrome - Sinus bradycardia - Sinus Tachycardia - Premature atrial complexes - Premature ventricular complexes - Atrial Flutter, Right bundle branch block - Left bundle branch block - Left Ventricular hypertrophy - Anterior wall Myocardial Infarction - Septal wall Myocardial Infarction - Lateral wall Myocardial Infarction - Inferior wall Myocardial Infarction - Posterior wall Myocardial Infarction The main purpose of this study is to verify whether "Chang Gung ECG Abnormality Detection Software" can correctly identify abnormal ECG signals among patients of 14 diseases. The interpretation standard is the consensus of 3 cardiologists. The results of the software analysis will be used to evaluate the performance of the primary and secondary evaluation indicators.
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn about the safety and outcome of prophylactic pacemaker implantation in patients with right bundle-branch block undergoing trans-catheter aortic valve (TAVI) implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction.Participants will be randomized to: - Prophylactic pacemaker implantation prior TAVI - Conservative strategy
This study will utilize 3D mapping as a tool to explore electro-anatomical and electrocardiographic characteristics of the Left Bundle Branch Area. We plan on prospectively reviewing the data found from 3D mapping the left bundle branch implantation cases and using the data to improve understanding of electro-anatomical characteristics of this area for a better definition of the implantation target and depth.
The study will investigate the feasibility of using direct HIS pacing or left bundle branch pacing (LBB pacing) as an alternative to biventricular pacing in patients with symptomatic heart failure and an ECG with a typical left bundle branch block pattern.
Heart failure (HF) is the most common nosology encountered in clinical practice. Its incidence and prevalence increase exponentially with increasing age and it is associated with increased mortality, more frequent hospitalization and decreased quality of life. An initial approach to the treatment of HF patients with reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function and left bundle branch block (LBBB) was implantation of cardioresynchronization device using biventricular pacing. This has resulted in long-term clinical benefits such as improved quality of life, increased functional capacity, reduced HF hospitalizations and overall mortality. However, conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in only 70% of patients. And the remaining 30% of patients are non-responders to conventional CRT. Subsequently, His bundle pacing (HBP) has been developed to achieve the same results. According to other studies HBP has showed greater improvement in hemodynamic parameters than with conventional biventricular CRT. But, nevertheless, there are significant clinical troubles with HBP. In this regard, in 2017, the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was developed, which demonstrated clinical advantages compared to biventricular CRT. This method has become an alternative to HBP due to the stimulation of LBB outside the blocking site, a stable pacing threshold and a narrow QRS duration. A series of case reports and observational studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of LBBP in patients with CRT indications. However, it is not enough data about CRT with LBBP effectiveness in LV remodeling, reducing mortality and complications. According to our hypothesis, CRT with LBBP compared with conventional biventricular CRT will significantly improve the clinical outcomes and reverse LV remodeling in patients with chronic HF with reduced LV ejection fraction and reduce the number of non-responders to conventional CRT.
Heart failure (HF) is the most common nosology encountered in clinical practice. Its incidence and prevalence increase exponentially with increasing age and it is associated with the increased mortality, more frequent hospitalization and decreased quality of life. An initial approach to the treatment of HF patients with reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function and left bundle branch block (LBBB) was implantation of device for cardiac resynchronization therapy using biventricular pacing. This has resulted in long-term clinical benefits such as improved quality of life, increased functional capacity, reduced HF hospitalizations and overall mortality. However, conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in only 70% of patients. And the remaining 30% of patients are non-responders to conventional CRT. Cardiac conduction system pacing is currently a promising technique for these patients. Particularly, His bundle pacing (HBP) has been developed to achieve the same results. According to other studies HBP has shown greater improvement in hemodynamic parameters comparing with conventional biventricular CRT. But, nevertheless, there are significant clinical troubles with HBP, especially high pacing threshold. In this regard, in 2017, the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was developed, which demonstrated clinical advantages compared to conventional biventricular CRT. Also, since 2019, left bundle branch pacing-optimized CRT (LBBPO CRT) has been used in clinical practice. These methods have become an alternative to HBP due to the stimulation of LBB outside the blocking site, a stable pacing threshold and a narrow QRS complex duration on electrocardiogram. A series of case reports and observational studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of LBBP and LBBPO CRT in patients with CRT indications. However, it is not enough data about impact of CRT with LBBP and combined CRT with LBBP and LV pacing on myocardial remodeling, reducing mortality and complications. According to our hypothesis, CRT with LBBP and combined CRT with LBBP and LV pacing compared with conventional biventricular pacing will significantly improve the clinical outcomes and reverse myocardial remodeling in patients who are non-responders to biventricular CRT with HF, reduced LV ejection fraction and with indications to CRT devices with defibrillator function (CRT-D) or one of the CRT-D leads replacement.