Executive Summary
Key Clinical Point: Patients with high right ventricular (RV) pacing burden (>40%) are at significant risk for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) and progressive left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Early recognition and intervention with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or conduction system pacing can prevent or reverse deterioration.
This comprehensive guide examines the prognostic assessment and management of cardiac patients with permanent pacemakers, focusing on those with high RV pacing burden. We present evidence-based strategies for risk stratification, monitoring protocols, and therapeutic interventions including CRT upgrade indications at various LVEF thresholds.
Clinical Case Study: Progressive LV Dysfunction in a Leadless Pacemaker Patient
Patient Profile
- Age: 71 years (male)
- Device: Aveir VR leadless pacemaker (implanted May 2024)
- Pacing burden: 97% ventricular pacing (near-complete pacemaker dependence)
- Current LVEF trajectory: 56% (2018) → 50-55% (2019) → 34-39% (2025)
- Key finding: Severe left atrial enlargement (5.04 cm)
Longitudinal Echocardiographic Data
| Parameter |
Normal Range |
Jul 2018 |
Nov 2019 |
Mar 2023 |
Oct 2025 |
Trend |
| LVEF (%) |
53-77 |
56 |
50-55 |
50-55 |
34-39 ⚠️ |
↓ Declining |
| LVIDd (cm) |
3.7-5.6 |
4.6 |
5.2 |
5.01 |
4.24 ✓ |
↓ Normalized |
| LVIDs (cm) |
2.0-4.0 |
3.3 |
3.9 |
3.52 |
3.00 ✓ |
↓ Improved |
| LA diameter (cm) |
1.9-4.0 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
5.04 ⚠️ |
— |
↑ Progressive |
| IVSd (cm) |
0.6-1.1 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
1.29 |
0.90 ✓ |
→ Stable |
| LVPWd (cm) |
0.6-1.1 |
1.1 |
0.9 |
1.29 |
0.92 ✓ |
→ Stable |
Critical Observation: This patient demonstrates progressive systolic dysfunction despite paradoxical chamber size normalization. The combination of declining LVEF (7-year decline of ~17-22 percentage points) with severe LA enlargement and high RV pacing burden strongly suggests pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) with superimposed diastolic dysfunction.
Understanding Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy (PICM)
Pathophysiology
Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is a form of iatrogenic heart failure that develops as a consequence of chronic right ventricular pacing. The mechanism involves:
- Ventricular dyssynchrony: RV pacing creates abnormal electrical activation patterns, causing mechanical dyssynchrony between the right and left ventricles
- Prolonged QRS duration: Non-physiologic activation results in wide QRS complexes (typically 140-180ms), delaying LV contraction
- Abnormal septal motion: Early RV activation causes paradoxical septal motion, reducing LV filling efficiency
- Mitral regurgitation: Dyssynchrony can worsen functional MR, further compromising cardiac output
- Neurohormonal activation: Chronic suboptimal hemodynamics activate RAAS and SNS, perpetuating the cycle
- Cellular remodeling: Chronic dyssynchrony induces myocyte hypertrophy and fibrosis in late-activated regions
Incidence and Risk Factors
| Risk Factor |
Associated Risk |
Evidence Level |
| High RV pacing burden (>40%) |
10-20% develop PICM |
Class I |
| Baseline reduced LVEF (<50%) |
2-3× increased risk |
Class I |
| Wide paced QRS (>150ms) |
Significantly higher risk |
Class IIa |
| RV apical pacing site |
Higher vs. septal pacing |
Class IIa |
| Pre-existing structural heart disease |
Accelerated progression |
Class IIa |
| Young age at implant |
More lifetime exposure |
Class IIb |
Clinical Pearl: The case presented demonstrates ALL major risk factors for PICM: high RV pacing burden (97%), baseline reduced LVEF (50%), RV pacing site (Aveir VR is positioned in RV), and evidence of worsening after implant. This constellation predicts a >50% probability of significant PICM.
Prognostic Assessment Framework
5-Year Risk Stratification
High Risk (60-70%)
Criteria:
- Progressive LVEF decline (>10% over 2-5 years)
- Severe LA enlargement (>4.5 cm)
- High pacing burden (>80%)
- Established HFrEF (LVEF <40%)
5-Year Outcomes:
- HF hospitalization: 70-80%
- AF development: 60-70%
- Further EF decline: 50-60%
- CV death: 15-25%
Moderate Risk (30-50%)
Criteria:
- Stable LVEF 40-50%
- Moderate LA enlargement (4.0-4.5 cm)
- Moderate pacing burden (40-80%)
- Mild symptoms (NYHA I-II)
5-Year Outcomes:
- HF hospitalization: 30-50%
- AF development: 30-50%
- EF decline: 30-40%
- CV death: 8-15%
Low Risk (10-20%)
Criteria:
- Stable LVEF >50%
- Normal LA size (<4.0 cm)
- Low pacing burden (<40%)
- Asymptomatic
5-Year Outcomes:
- HF hospitalization: 10-20%
- AF development: 15-25%
- EF decline: 10-20%
- CV death: 3-8%
Timeline of Disease Progression (Case Example)
July 2018 - Baseline
LVEF: 56% (mild dysfunction)
LA: 3.5 cm (mild enlargement)
Clinical status: Likely symptomatic bradycardia, considering pacing
November 2019 - Early Decline
LVEF: 50-55% (borderline dysfunction)
LA: 4.2 cm (moderate enlargement)
EF decline rate: ~2-3% per year
March 2023 - Pre-Pacemaker
LVEF: 50-55% (stable borderline)
LA: 5.04 cm (severe enlargement)
Indication for pacing strengthens
May 2024 - Aveir VR Implantation
Leadless pacemaker implanted
Mode: VVI, 50-130 bpm
Capture threshold: 2.75V @ 0.4ms
October 2025 - Accelerated Decline
LVEF: 34-39% (moderate-severe HFrEF)
Pacing burden: 97%
Critical finding: EF decline accelerated post-implant (~10-15% in 18 months)
Diagnosis: Likely pacing-induced cardiomyopathy
Device Interrogation Analysis: Aveir VR Performance
Comparison of Sequential Interrogations
| Parameter |
October 3, 2025 |
February 13, 2026 |
Clinical Significance |
| Battery Longevity |
6.1 years |
5.2 years |
Expected with increased output |
| Battery Current |
3.0 µA |
3.4 µA |
13% increase due to programming |
| Output Voltage |
3.5 V @ 0.4 ms |
4.0 V @ 0.4 ms |
Increased for safety margin |
| Capture Threshold |
2.75 V @ 0.4 ms |
2.75 V @ 0.4 ms |
Stable - good lead performance |
| Impedance |
590 Ω |
600 Ω |
Stable within normal range |
| R-Wave Sensing |
No R Wave |
4.3 mV |
Resolved - likely positional |
| VP% (Sampled) |
97% |
97% |
Near-complete PM dependence |
| Remaining Capacity |
85% |
80% |
Still excellent longevity |
Device Performance Interpretation
Positive Findings:
- ✓ Stable capture threshold (2.75V) - no exit block or threshold rise
- ✓ Stable impedance (590-600Ω) - healthy electrode-tissue interface
- ✓ No device-related complications or alerts
- ✓ Excellent projected battery longevity (5.2 years)
- ✓ Sensing issue resolved (No R wave → 4.3 mV)
Concerning Findings:
- ⚠️ 97% ventricular pacing - near complete pacemaker dependence
- ⚠️ Higher output required (4.0V) - increased energy consumption
- ⚠️ Cannot reduce pacing burden with current single-chamber device
- ⚠️ RV pacing location suboptimal for ventricular synchrony
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT): Indications and Evidence
CRT at Different LVEF Thresholds
Guidelines Update 2024: ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines have evolved to recognize the unique needs of patients with high pacing burden, even with LVEF >35%. The following recommendations reflect current evidence-based practice.
LVEF ≤35% with High RV Pacing Burden
Class I Recommendation (Definitive Indication):
- Indication: CRT is recommended for patients with LVEF ≤35%, anticipated >40% ventricular pacing, and sinus rhythm
- Evidence: Multiple RCTs (BLOCK HF, BIOPACE, PACE) demonstrate mortality reduction and HF hospitalization decrease
- Benefit:
- Mortality reduction: 25-36%
- HF hospitalization reduction: 30-40%
- LVEF improvement: average 8-12 percentage points
- Response rate: 65-75%
- Options:
- Traditional BiV-CRT (CRT-P or CRT-D)
- Conduction system pacing (His-bundle or LBBAP)
LVEF 36-50% with High RV Pacing Burden
Class IIa Recommendation (Reasonable, Should Be Considered):
- Indication: CRT can be useful for patients with LVEF 36-50%, anticipated >40% ventricular pacing, in sinus rhythm to reduce morbidity
- Evidence: BLOCK HF trial, post-hoc analyses of major CRT trials
- Benefit:
- Prevents LVEF decline
- Reduces HF hospitalization: 20-30%
- Improves quality of life
- Response rate: 55-65%
- Special consideration: Conduction system pacing (CSP) increasingly favored over traditional BiV-CRT in this population
LVEF >50% with High RV Pacing Burden
Class IIb Recommendation (May Be Considered):
- Indication: Conduction system pacing may be considered over RV pacing to prevent future LV dysfunction
- Evidence: Emerging data from PACE trial, observational studies
- Benefit:
- Prevention of PICM development: 60-70% reduction
- Maintains physiologic activation
- May prevent atrial fibrillation
- Consideration: Not urgent, but reasonable for younger patients or those with >90% pacing burden
Conduction System Pacing vs. Traditional BiV-CRT
| Feature |
Conduction System Pacing (His/LBBAP) |
Traditional BiV-CRT |
| Mechanism |
Physiologic activation via intrinsic conduction |
Simultaneous RV/LV epicardial activation |
| QRS Duration |
Narrow (often <120ms) |
Variable (often still wide) |
| Lead Complexity |
Single lead (simpler) |
Three leads (more complex) |
| Procedural Success |
85-95% (operator-dependent) |
95-98% |
| Long-term Data |
Emerging (5-10 years) |
Extensive (20+ years) |
| Response Rate |
70-80% in experienced centers |
65-75% |
| Threshold Stability |
Generally stable, some rise over time |
Very stable |
| Cost |
Similar to lower |
Higher (more leads) |
| Upgrade Complexity |
Requires Aveir VR extraction or abandonment |
Same |
Emerging Consensus: For patients requiring CRT upgrade with LVEF 36-50%, conduction system pacing (particularly LBBAP) is increasingly preferred over traditional BiV-CRT due to more physiologic activation, simpler implant, and comparable or superior outcomes. His-bundle pacing has higher technical difficulty but excellent results when successful.
Medical Therapy Optimization: Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT)
Quadruple Therapy for HFrEF
The Four Pillars of Heart Failure Management
Modern HFrEF management requires concurrent initiation of four medication classes, each with proven mortality benefit:
| Drug Class |
Specific Agents |
Target Dose |
Mortality Benefit |
Evidence Level |
| 1. ACE-I/ARB or ARNI |
Preferred: Sacubitril/Valsartan
Alt: Enalapril, Lisinopril, Losartan
|
Sacubitril/Valsartan 97/103 mg BID
Enalapril 10-20 mg BID
Lisinopril 20-40 mg daily
|
20-25% reduction |
Class I |
| 2. Beta-Blocker |
Carvedilol
Metoprolol succinate
Bisoprolol
|
Carvedilol 25 mg BID
Metoprolol succinate 200 mg daily
Bisoprolol 10 mg daily
|
30-35% reduction |
Class I |
| 3. Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist |
Spironolactone
Eplerenone
|
Spironolactone 25-50 mg daily
Eplerenone 50 mg daily
|
15-30% reduction |
Class I |
| 4. SGLT2 Inhibitor |
Dapagliflozin
Empagliflozin
|
Dapagliflozin 10 mg daily
Empagliflozin 10 mg daily
|
13-18% reduction |
Class I |
Implementation Strategy: Current guidelines recommend initiating all four medication classes as early as possible, ideally within the first few weeks of HFrEF diagnosis. Sequential therapy delays benefit. Use low doses initially and uptitrate over 3-6 months to target or maximally tolerated doses.
Additional Therapies
- Diuretics (Loop): Furosemide or torsemide as needed for volume management - no mortality benefit but essential for symptom control
- Ivabradine: If HR >70 bpm despite beta-blocker, sinus rhythm, LVEF ≤35% Class IIa
- Hydralazine/Isosorbide Dinitrate: For African American patients or those intolerant to ACE-I/ARB/ARNI Class I
- Digoxin: May reduce HF hospitalizations, no mortality benefit Class IIb
- Anticoagulation: If atrial fibrillation develops (high probability given LA size)
Comprehensive Management Algorithm
Decision Tree for Patients with High RV Pacing Burden
Step 1: Initial Assessment
- ✓ Verify pacing burden from device interrogation (>40% = high risk)
- ✓ Obtain current echocardiogram (LVEF, chamber sizes, valve function)
- ✓ Assess symptoms (NYHA functional class)
- ✓ Review trend in LVEF if prior echos available
- ✓ Measure BNP or NT-proBNP
- ✓ Check paced QRS duration
Step 2: Risk Stratification
| LVEF Category |
Pacing Burden |
LVEF Trend |
Risk Level |
Action |
| ≤35% |
>40% |
Any |
HIGH |
Urgent CRT evaluation |
| 36-50% |
>80% |
Declining |
HIGH |
CRT upgrade recommended |
| 36-50% |
>40% |
Stable |
MODERATE |
Consider CSP, close monitoring |
| >50% |
>90% |
Any |
MODERATE |
Consider CSP prophylactically |
| >50% |
40-90% |
Stable |
LOW |
Monitor q6-12 months |
Step 3: Intervention Selection (for those requiring upgrade)
If LVEF ≤35%:
- Option 1 (Preferred for most): Traditional BiV-CRT-D
- Advantages: Extensive long-term data, high success rate, defibrillator backup
- Considerations: Three-lead system, higher complexity
- Option 2 (Emerging preference): Conduction System Pacing + ICD
- Advantages: More physiologic, potentially superior outcomes
- Considerations: Requires experienced operator, less long-term data
If LVEF 36-50%:
- Preferred: Conduction System Pacing (LBBAP or His-bundle)
- Prevention of further decline
- More physiologic than BiV
- Simpler than full BiV system
- Alternative: Traditional BiV-CRT-P (pacemaker without defibrillator)
- If CSP not available or unsuccessful
- Proven efficacy in this population
Step 4: Medical Optimization (Concurrent with Device Strategy)
- ✓ Initiate/optimize GDMT quad therapy (ARNI, BB, MRA, SGLT2i)
- ✓ Diuretics for volume management
- ✓ Consider additional agents (ivabradine, H-ISDN) if indicated
- ✓ Cardiac rehabilitation referral
- ✓ Lifestyle modifications (sodium <2g/day, fluid restriction if needed)
Step 5: Monitoring Protocol
| Parameter |
Frequency |
Action Triggers |
| Echocardiogram |
High risk: q3-6 months
Moderate risk: q6-12 months
Post-CRT: 3-6 months after upgrade
|
- LVEF decline >5%
- New valvular dysfunction
- Change in symptoms
|
| Device Check |
q3-6 months |
- Threshold rise
- Impedance change >100Ω
- Arrhythmia episodes
|
| BNP/NT-proBNP |
Each cardiology visit |
- >2× increase from baseline
- Failure to decrease with therapy
|
| Clinical Assessment |
q3 months initially, then q6 months if stable |
- NYHA class worsening
- Weight gain >5 lbs/week
- Worsening exercise tolerance
|
Case Resolution: Specific Recommendations
Patient-Specific Risk Assessment
71-year-old male with:
- Aveir VR leadless pacemaker (May 2024)
- 97% RV pacing burden (near-complete dependence)
- Progressive LVEF decline: 56% → 50-55% → 34-39%
- Severe LA enlargement (5.04 cm)
- Accelerated decline post-pacemaker implant
5-Year Deterioration Risk: 60-70% (HIGH)
Recommended Actions:
IMMEDIATE (Within 1 Month):
- Electrophysiology Consultation
- Discuss CRT upgrade options (BiV-CRT-D vs. CSP + ICD)
- Plan for Aveir VR extraction or abandonment strategy
- Assess candidacy for conduction system pacing
- Initiate/Optimize GDMT Quad Therapy
- ARNI (sacubitril/valsartan) - start 24/26 mg BID, uptitrate
- Beta-blocker (carvedilol) - start 3.125 mg BID, uptitrate
- MRA (spironolactone) - start 12.5-25 mg daily
- SGLT2i (dapagliflozin 10 mg or empagliflozin 10 mg daily)
- Baseline Labs and Testing
- BNP or NT-proBNP
- Comprehensive metabolic panel (renal function, K+)
- 6-minute walk test
- Consider cardiac MRI for viability/scar assessment
SHORT-TERM (1-3 Months):
- CRT Upgrade Procedure
- Recommended: BiV-CRT-D given LVEF 34-39% (Class I indication)
- Alternative: Conduction system pacing + ICD if operator experienced
- Extraction vs. abandonment of Aveir VR to be determined by EP
- Holter Monitor
- 48-hour monitoring to assess for atrial fibrillation (high risk given LA size)
- If AF present: anticoagulation, rate control strategy
ONGOING (3-6 Months and Beyond):
- Post-CRT Optimization
- AV delay optimization (echo-guided or automated)
- VV delay optimization for BiV systems
- Ensure biventricular pacing >95%
- Repeat Echo at 3-6 Months Post-CRT
- Assess for EF improvement (expected 8-12 percentage point increase)
- Monitor chamber remodeling
- Reassess valvular function
- Medication Uptitration
- Target doses of GDMT agents
- Monitor for side effects, renal function, hyperkalemia
- Cardiac Rehabilitation
- Supervised exercise program
- Education on HF self-management
- Nutritional counseling
Expected Outcome with Optimal Therapy:
With CRT upgrade + GDMT optimization, this patient has a 60-70% probability of clinical response with:
- LVEF improvement to 40-50% range
- Symptom improvement (NYHA I-II)
- Reduced HF hospitalization risk
- Improved quality of life and exercise tolerance
Without intervention, the 5-year prognosis is poor with high likelihood of progressive HF, hospitalizations, and cardiovascular events.
Special Considerations: Leadless Pacemaker Extraction
Aveir VR Extraction Challenges
The Aveir VR leadless pacemaker presents unique challenges for CRT upgrade:
Extraction Options:
- Option 1: Percutaneous Extraction
- Using manufacturer-specific retrieval tools
- Success rate: 95-98% in experienced centers
- Risk: Tricuspid valve damage, cardiac perforation (rare)
- Timing: Can be done same-procedure as CRT implant
- Option 2: Abandonment
- Leave Aveir VR in place, program to OOO or VVI backup
- Proceed with CRT lead placement
- Considerations: Potential lead-lead interaction, tricuspid valve obstruction
- Generally NOT recommended for younger patients with long life expectancy
Recommendation for this patient: Given age (71), stable device function, and risks of extraction, shared decision-making with EP is essential. Either extraction or abandonment reasonable depending on operator experience and patient preference.
Prognostic Models and Risk Calculators
Validated HF Risk Scores
| Model |
Variables |
Outcomes Predicted |
Best Use |
| Seattle Heart Failure Model |
Age, sex, LVEF, NYHA class, ischemic etiology, medications, labs (Na, Hb, chol, uric acid, lymphocytes)
|
1, 2, 3-year survival
Expected life-years gained with therapies
|
Treatment planning
Patient counseling
|
| MAGGIC Risk Score |
Age, sex, LVEF, NYHA class, creatinine, diabetes, HF duration, BMI, beta-blocker use, ACE-I/ARB use
|
1 and 3-year mortality
|
Simple prognostication
Clinical trial enrollment
|
| CHARM Risk Score |
Age, LVEF, NYHA class, diabetes, prior MI, cardiomegaly on X-ray
|
Cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization
|
Identifying high-risk patients for aggressive therapy
|
Application to Case: Using the MAGGIC Risk Score with available data (age 71, male, LVEF 34-39%, likely NYHA II-III, estimated normal BMI and creatinine, on GDMT), the predicted 1-year mortality is approximately 12-18% and 3-year mortality 30-40%. CRT upgrade could reduce these risks by 25-35%.
Key Takeaways for Clinical Practice
Critical Points to Remember:
- High RV pacing burden (>40%) is NOT benign
- 10-20% develop pacing-induced cardiomyopathy
- Risk highest with baseline reduced LVEF and >80% pacing
- Monitor LVEF serially in all patients with high pacing burden
- CRT indications extend beyond LVEF ≤35%
- Class IIa recommendation for LVEF 36-50% with >40% pacing
- Consider prophylactic CSP for LVEF >50% with very high pacing burden
- Earlier intervention may prevent irreversible remodeling
- Conduction system pacing is emerging as preferred upgrade strategy
- More physiologic than traditional BiV-CRT
- Particularly attractive for LVEF 36-50% population
- Requires experienced operator but excellent outcomes
- GDMT is non-negotiable
- Quad therapy (ARNI + BB + MRA + SGLT2i) is standard of care
- Each class provides additive mortality benefit
- Initiate early and uptitrate aggressively
- Left atrial size is an independent prognostic marker
- LA >4.5 cm predicts high AF risk
- Marker of chronic elevated filling pressures
- May indicate need for more aggressive diuresis
- PICM is often reversible with CRT
- 60-70% response rate in appropriate candidates
- Average LVEF improvement 8-12 percentage points
- Earlier intervention yields better outcomes
- Device interrogation provides critical prognostic data
- Pacing burden percentage guides risk stratification
- Threshold stability reflects lead-tissue interface health
- Arrhythmia logs may reveal subclinical AF
- Shared decision-making is essential
- Discuss risks/benefits of CRT upgrade
- Consider patient preferences, life expectancy, comorbidities
- Set realistic expectations for response
Future Directions and Ongoing Research
Emerging Areas of Investigation
1. Artificial Intelligence in CRT Response Prediction
- Machine learning algorithms to predict CRT responders
- Integration of echo, ECG, device data, and biomarkers
- May allow more personalized upgrade decisions
2. Leadless CRT Systems
- WiSE-CRT (wireless endocardial LV pacing) under investigation
- Could revolutionize CRT by eliminating coronary sinus lead
- Early feasibility data promising
3. Optimized Conduction System Pacing
- Left bundle branch area pacing becoming more standardized
- Development of specialized delivery tools
- Ongoing RCTs comparing CSP vs. BiV-CRT
4. Biomarkers for PICM Risk
- NT-proBNP, galectin-3, ST2 under study as early PICM predictors
- May identify high-risk patients before EF decline
- Could guide prophylactic CSP in selected patients
5. Novel HF Therapies
- Vericiguat (soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator)
- Omecamtiv mecarbil (cardiac myosin activator)
- Further refining optimal HF medication combinations
Conclusion
The assessment of cardiac deterioration risk in patients with permanent pacemakers requires a comprehensive, multifaceted approach. High right ventricular pacing burden represents a significant risk factor for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, with incidence rates of 10-20% in susceptible populations. The case presented illustrates the typical progression: gradual LVEF decline accelerated by device implantation, ultimately resulting in moderate-to-severe systolic dysfunction.
The cornerstone of management involves early recognition through serial echocardiographic surveillance, aggressive medical optimization with guideline-directed quad therapy, and timely consideration of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Current evidence supports CRT upgrade not only for LVEF ≤35% (Class I indication) but also for LVEF 36-50% with high pacing burden (Class IIa recommendation). Conduction system pacing has emerged as an attractive alternative to traditional biventricular CRT, particularly in the LVEF 36-50% population, offering more physiologic ventricular activation with potentially superior outcomes.
For the presented patient with LVEF 34-39%, 97% RV pacing burden, and severe left atrial enlargement, the 5-year risk of significant cardiac deterioration is estimated at 60-70% without intervention. However, with optimal management including CRT upgrade and GDMT optimization, the prognosis can be substantially improved, with expected LVEF recovery to 40-50%, symptom improvement, and reduced hospitalization risk.
Ultimately, successful management requires individualized risk assessment, shared decision-making with patients, and close collaboration between general cardiologists and cardiac electrophysiologists. As the field continues to evolve with advances in conduction system pacing, leadless technologies, and novel heart failure therapies, outcomes for this challenging patient population will continue to improve.
For Healthcare Professionals: This article is intended for educational purposes and should not replace clinical judgment or individualized patient care. Treatment decisions should always be made in consultation with the patient's treating physicians and based on complete clinical information, patient preferences, and current guidelines.
References
- Curtis AB, et al. Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(17):1585-1593.
- Khurshid S, et al. Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(9):1619-1625.
- Burri H, et al. EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Europace. 2021;23(7):983-1008.
- Vijayaraman P, et al. His-Optimized Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to Maximize Electrical Resynchronization. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12(2):e006934.
- McDonagh TA, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599-3726.
- Heidenreich PA, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895-e1032.
- Sharma PS, et al. Permanent His-bundle pacing: shaping the future of physiological ventricular pacing. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020;17(1):22-36.
- Abraham WT, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845-1853.
- Kusumoto FM, et al. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay. Circulation. 2019;140(8):e382-e482.
- Poole JE, et al. Complication rates associated with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacements and upgrade procedures. Circulation. 2010;122(16):1553-1561.