Pujol-Lopez M, Jiménez-Arjona R, Garre P, Guasch E, Borràs R, Doltra A, Ferró E, García-Ribas C, Niebla M, Carro E, Puente JL, Vázquez-Calvo S, Invers-Rubio E, Roca-Luque I, Castel MÁ, Arbelo E, Sitges M, Brugada J, Tolosana JM, and Mont L
Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Randomized studies comparing both therapies are scarce and do not include left bundle branch pacing., Objectives: This study aims to compare ventricular resynchronization achieved by CSP vs BiVP in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication., Methods: LEVEL-AT (Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening with Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy) was a randomized, parallel, controlled, noninferiority trial. Seventy patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication were randomized 1:1 to BiVP or CSP, and followed up for 6 months. Crossover was allowed when primary allocation procedure failed. Primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular activation time, measured using electrocardiographic imaging. Secondary endpoints were left ventricular reverse remodeling and the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or death at 6-month follow-up., Results: Thirty-five patients were allocated to each group. Eight (23%) patients crossed over from CSP to BiVP; 2 patients (6%) crossed over from BiVP to CSP. Electrocardiographic imaging could not be performed in 2 patients in each group. A similar decrease in left ventricular activation time was achieved by CSP and BiVP (-28 ± 26 ms vs -21 ± 20 ms, respectively; mean difference -6.8 ms; 95% CI: -18.3 ms to 4.6 ms; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). Both groups showed a similar change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-37 ± 59 mL CSP vs -30 ± 41 mL BiVP; mean difference: -8 mL; 95% CI: -33 mL to 17 mL; P = 0.04 for noninferiority) and similar rates of mortality or heart failure hospitalizations (2.9% vs 11.4%, respectively) (P = 0.002 for noninferiority)., Conclusions: Similar degrees of cardiac resynchronization, ventricular reverse remodeling, and clinical outcomes were attained by CSP as compared to BiVP. CSP could be a feasible alternative to BiVP. (LEVEL-AT [Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening With Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy]; NCT04054895)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Pujol-Lopez, Tolosana, Castel, and Jiménez-Arjona have received funding for a Project in Conduction System Pacing: FIS PI21/00615 Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Madrid, Spain). Dr Pujol-Lopez has received the Catalan Society of Cardiology research grant in 2019 and 2020 (Catalonia, Spain), the Josep Font ResearchGrant in 2019 from Hospital Clínic Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain), and the Research Grant 2020 from Asociación del Ritmo Cardiaco (Spanish Society of Cardiology); and has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Roca-Luque has received honoraria as a lecturer and consultant from Abbott and Biosense Webster. Dr Sitges has received consultant fees and speaker honoraria from Abbott, Medtronic, General Electric, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Tolosana has received honoraria as a lecturer and consultant from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Mont has received unrestricted research grants, fellowship program support, and honoraria as a lecturer and consultant from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Livanova, and Medtronic; and holds stock in Galgo Medical and Corify. Dr Castel has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Microport. Dr Arbelo has received speaker honoraria from Biosense Webster and Bayer. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)