Faur-Grigori Adelina Andreea, Văcărescu Cristina, Nistor Samuel, Luca Silvia Ana, Liviu Cirin, Crișan Simina, Luca Constantin-Tudor, Vătășescu Radu-Gabriel, Cozma Dragoș
Doctoral School, "Victor Babeș" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.
Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Timisoara, 300310 Timisoara, Romania.
J Clin Med. 2025 Jul 8;14(14):4853. doi: 10.3390/jcm14144853.
This review aims to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of left ventricle-only fusion pacing (LV-only fCRTp) and identify evidence-based selection criteria that may optimize patient response and long-term therapeutic benefit. : Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is traditionally associated with biventricular pacing (BiVp). However, approximately 20-40% of patients seem to remain non-responders to this therapy. LV-only fCRTp offers a more physiological alternative by combining left ventricular epicardial pacing with the intrinsic ventricular activation wavefront. Beyond optimization strategies, the observed variability in response highlights the need for better patient selection in order to fully unlock its therapeutic potential. : A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane Library for original articles published up to April 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The search focused on LV-only fCRTp performed either through standard RA/LV/RV biventricular devices or RA/LV dual-chamber systems. : Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 17 studies obtained LV-only fCRTp using biventricular devices, and 10 were considered true LV-only fCRTp using RA/LV dual-chamber devices. Standard and specific selection criteria were used to qualify patients for LV-only fCRTp. Preserved atrioventricular conduction, ischemic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmic risk stratification, and the management of supraventricular arrhythmias were common overlapping parameters among studies with high variability, highlighting their potential role in response. RA/LV devices yielded consistent clinical benefits and low complication rates, particularly in nonischemic patients with stable AV conduction and low arrhythmic risk, while having a lower financial burden. : Beyond guideline recommendations for CRT, this review identifies supplementary selection criteria that could further influence the effectiveness and stability of fusion pacing.
本综述旨在系统评估仅左心室融合起搏(LV-only fCRTp)的临床结局,并确定基于证据的选择标准,以优化患者反应和长期治疗效益。:心脏再同步治疗(CRT)传统上与双心室起搏(BiVp)相关。然而,约20%-40%的患者似乎对该治疗无反应。LV-only fCRTp通过将左心室心外膜起搏与固有的心室激活波阵面相结合,提供了一种更符合生理的替代方案。除了优化策略外,观察到的反应变异性凸显了更好地选择患者的必要性,以便充分发挥其治疗潜力。:按照PRISMA 2020指南,在PubMed和Cochrane图书馆中对截至2025年4月发表的原始文章进行了系统的文献检索。检索重点是通过标准的右心房/左心室/右心室双心室装置或右心房/左心室双腔系统进行的LV-only fCRTp。:27项研究符合纳入标准。其中,17项研究使用双心室装置获得LV-only fCRTp,10项被认为是使用右心房/左心室双腔装置的真正LV-only fCRTp。使用标准和特定的选择标准来确定患者是否适合LV-only fCRTp。房室传导保留、缺血性心肌病、心律失常风险分层以及室上性心律失常的管理是研究中常见的重叠参数,变异性高,凸显了它们在反应中的潜在作用。右心房/左心室装置产生了一致的临床益处和低并发症发生率,特别是在房室传导稳定且心律失常风险低的非缺血性患者中,同时经济负担较低。:除了CRT的指南建议外,本综述还确定了可能进一步影响融合起搏有效性和稳定性的补充选择标准。