An interventional study of Left bundle branch area pacing and Conventional pacing strategy in Atrioventricular Block and Cardiac Surgery, sponsored by Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-31.
Sponsored by Sahlgrenska University Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Conventional right ventricular pacing has been associated with ventricular dyssynchrony and an increased risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, which may lead to worse clinical outcomes. To lessen the burden of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, the adoption of conduction system pacing has increased in recent years. In patients with normal cardiac function, measured as left ventricular ejection fraction, the superiority of conduction system pacing is less clear. As a result, both pacing strategies remain in widespread clinical use.
Patients undergoing cardiac surgery represent a vulnerable cohort for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, given their established structural heart disease, and postoperative atrioventricular block remains a common occurrence in these patients.
This multicenter randomized trial aims to evaluate the use of conduction system pacing, in the form of left bundle branch area pacing, versus conventional pacing in patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction after cardiac surgery.
A high percentage of ventricular pacing increases the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is a syndrome defined by left ventricular dysfunction secondary to chronic right ventricular pacing, resulting in impaired outcomes. Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is estimated to affect approximately 10-20% of patients with a high proportion of right ventricular pacing (>20%), a population that mainly consists of patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). The abnormal activation leads to prolonged electrical and mechanical activation, which results in ventricular dyssynchrony. Other important risk factors for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy include structural heart disease and reduced ejection fraction, male sex and wide, paced QRS.
Clinical practice guidelines support pacemaker implantation following cardiac surgery only for severe and non-transient bradyarrhythmias, as pacemaker implantation increases the risk of severe infections and device-related long-term complications. Evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of patients who receive a pacemaker following cardiac surgery have limited need for pacing at long-term follow-up. Thus, the risk/benefit ratio for patients following cardiac surgery differs from that of the general population, while these patients also form a vulnerable population at high risk for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.
Over the last decade, a conduction system pacing strategy called left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been developed. In LBBAP, the pacemaker lead is inserted deep into the interventricular septum from the right ventricle to the left ventricular endocardium, targeting the left bundle and its resulting fascicles. As the current understanding of the development of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy suggests that the electrical dyssynchrony introduced by right ventricular pacing plays a crucial role, our hypothesis is that its incidence could be reduced by the favorable electrical activation achieved with LBBAP.
There are ongoing randomized controlled trials of conduction system pacing in the general population; however, none are investigating cardiac surgery patients. These patients differ substantially from the general population in age, expected long-term survival, and cardiovascular health. This increases their risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and could influence the feasibility of conduction system pacing due to their otherwise impaired cardiovascular health. At the same time, their long-term pacing dependence could differ from that of the general population.
Therefore, the aim of the present multicenter randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the long-term outcomes of LBBAP versus right ventricular pacing after cardiac surgery in patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary aim is to assess the feasibility of LBBAP after cardiac surgery with regard to implantation success and long-term electrical parameters. The results of this trial are anticipated to provide clinically meaningful evidence to guide pacing strategy selection in this patient cohort.
117 studies on the registry are indexed under Atrioventricular Block; 43 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 110 is below the median of 127 across 78 interventional studies indexed under Atrioventricular Block.
Browse Atrioventricular Block studies →Sahlgrenska University Hospital is the lead sponsor of 263 studies on the registry; 68 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
The share of blood the heart’s main pumping chamber (the left ventricle) pushes out with each beat, measured by an echocardiogram (heart ultrasound) or a MUGA scan. About 50–70% is normal.
The study doctor’s estimate of how long someone is likely to live. Criteria use it so that people can stay in the study long enough for it to answer its question.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
LVEF (left ventricular ejection fraction)
The share of blood the heart’s main pumping chamber (the left ventricle) pushes out with each beat, measured by an echocardiogram (heart ultrasound) or a MUGA scan. About 50–70% is normal.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Life expectancy
The study doctor’s estimate of how long someone is likely to live. Criteria use it so that people can stay in the study long enough for it to answer its question.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
This arm will receive a conventional pacemaker lead if they have atrioventricular block after cardiac surgery
Device: Conventional pacing strategy
This arm will receive a left bundle branch area pacing pacemaker lead if they have atrioventricular block after cardiac surgery
Device: Left bundle branch area pacing
Conventional pacing strategy versus conduction system pacing strategy in the form of left bundle branch area pacing
Conventional pacing strategy
Change in left ventricular ejection fraction
Change in left ventricular ejection fraction between enrollment and end of follow-up
Time frame: 1 year
Change in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter
Change in LVEDD from enrollment to end of study follow-up
Time frame: 1 year
Clinical endpoints - composite
Composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, device-related hospitalization
Time frame: 1 year
All-cause mortality
All-cause mortality
Time frame: 1 year
Heart failure hospitalization
Heart failure hospitalization
Time frame: 1 year
Device-related hospitalization
Device-related hospitalization
Time frame: 1 year
Quality-of-life measurement
Quality-of-life measurement by standardized questionnaire
Time frame: 1 year
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Start is estimated for Sep 2026; primary completion for Dec 2030, 51 months later.
Of 44 interventional studies with no phase under Atrioventricular Block, half reached primary completion within 33 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 18 and three quarters within 55. This study's planned 51 months is above that.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Sahlgrenska University Hospital →