Pacing the heart's natural wiring versus standard resynchronization pacemakers in heart failure
Compares conduction system pacing with standard biventricular pacing in people with heart failure.
Plain-language title generated from the registry record
Registry title: REstoration of SYNChronous Cardiac Function Due to Physiologic cArdiac Pacing Modalities With Clinical Endpoints
Key facts
- Where
- Pécs, HungarySee the site
Could this be for you?
Answer for yourself. This is not a decision: only the study team can say whether you can take part.
- Are you between 18 and 100 years old?
Source: NCT07684547, who can take part
Where in Hungary
- Heart Institute , University of PécsPécs, HungaryNo longer taking part
Questions to ask the study team
- How often do I need to come in, and for how long each time?
- Are travel costs paid?
- Can I keep my own doctor?
- What happens if I want to stop?
Trial details
- Who runs it
- University of Pecs
- Trial code
- NCT07684547
- Record updated
- 10 July 2026
- Original description
The goal of this observational study is to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologic cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using conduction system pacing strategies compared with conventional biventricular CRT in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and electrical dyssynchrony.Read full original descriptionShow less
REstoration of SYNChronous Cardiac Function Due to Physiologic cArdiac Pacing Modalities With Clinical Endpoints RESYNC-PACE
The goal of this observational study is to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologic cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using conduction system pacing strategies compared with conventional biventricular CRT in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and electrical dyssynchrony.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
* Does physiologic CRT (including left bundle branch area pacing [LBBAP] and LBBAP-optimized CRT) reduce the combined risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization compared with conventional biventricular CRT? * Does physiologic CRT improve cardiac function and reverse ventricular remodeling more effectively than conventional CRT?
Participants receiving physiologic CRT as part of routine clinical care will undergo standard follow-up evaluations, including electrocardiography, echocardiography, laboratory testing, and device interrogation. Clinical outcomes will be collected prospectively for 24 months and compared with a historical cohort of patients treated with conventional biventricular CRT.
The study will assess clinical outcomes, echocardiographic response, electrical resynchronization parameters, and device-related safety in a real-world heart failure population.
Inclusion: Age ≥18 years; Symptomatic heart failure despite guideline-directed medical therapy; Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; Indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy according to contemporary ESC guideline recommendations; QRS duration ≥150 ms with either:; Left bundle branch block (LBBB), or Intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD); Planned implantation of a CRT system; Ability to provide written informed consent; Expected survival greater than 24 months.
Exclusion: Life expectancy <12 months due to non-cardiac comorbidities; Active systemic infection or infection involving a cardiac implantable electronic device; Reversible causes of heart failure expected to improve without CRT; Any condition that, in the opinion of the investigators, would make participation inappropriate or interfere with study assessments; Age <18 years and Age 100 < years; Pregnancy or breastfeeding; Inability or unwillingness to provide informed consent; Participation in another interventional clinical trial that may affect study outcomes; Inability to comply with follow-up requirements; Missing essential baseline or follow-up data (retrospective cohort).