Comparing two pacemaker pacing methods in people with heart failure
Compares two ways of programming a heart pacemaker in adults with heart failure.
Plain-language title generated from the registry record
Registry title: A Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Optimized Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Alone
Key facts
- Where
- Neuruppin, GermanySee the site
Where in Germany
- University Hospital Ruppin-BrandenburgNeuruppin, GermanyNo 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
- PD Dr. Guram Imnadze
- Trial code
- NCT07842874
- Record updated
- 25 September 2026
- Original description
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising physiological pacing strategy and may offer advantages over conventional biventricular pacing (BVP), including improved clinical outcomes. However, its effectiveness may be limited in patients with distal conduction system disease, significant endocardial and/or myocardial damage, as well as when direct left bundle branch capture is not achieved. Conventional CRT remains an effective therapy but is associated with procedural challenges and a significant non-responder rate. Current guidelines support the use of LBBAP and BVP either individually or in combination as Left Bundle Branch Optimized CRT (LOT-CRT). Recent data suggest that LOT-CRT may provide superior electrical and hemodynamic resynchronization compared with both LBBAP and BVP. However, there is a lack of randomized trials comparing LBBAP and LOT-CRT in patients with CRT-P indication. The aim of this study is to compare the LOT-CRTP to LBBAP alone.Read full original descriptionShow less
A Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Optimized Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Alone
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising physiological pacing strategy and may offer advantages over conventional biventricular pacing (BVP), including improved clinical outcomes. However, its effectiveness may be limited in patients with distal conduction system disease, significant endocardial and/or myocardial damage, as well as when direct left bundle branch capture is not achieved. Conventional CRT remains an effective therapy but is associated with procedural challenges and a significant non-responder rate. Current guidelines support the use of LBBAP and BVP either individually or in combination as Left Bundle Branch Optimized CRT (LOT-CRT). Recent data suggest that LOT-CRT may provide superior electrical and hemodynamic resynchronization compared with both LBBAP and BVP. However, there is a lack of randomized trials comparing LBBAP and LOT-CRT in patients with CRT-P indication. The aim of this study is to compare the LOT-CRTP to LBBAP alone.
Inclusion: Age ≥ 18 years Clinical indication for CRTP implantation according to the current ESC guidelines De novo implantation LBBB (QRS duration ≥130 ms) NYHA II-IV.
Exclusion: Severe mitral or aortic valvular disease History of VT/VF Failed implantation of any component of the LOT-CRTP system/ incompleteness of the system to be implanted Pregnancy Life expectancy < 1 year Inability to give written consent.