ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07795541OPTI-PACSUpdated Aug 31, 2026

OPTImizing Lead Placement in Patients Requiring Pacemaker After Cardiac Surgery

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

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
110
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Atrioventricular Block
  • Cardiac Surgery

Keywords

  • Conduction system pacing
  • Atrioventricular block
  • After cardiac surgery
  • Left bundle branch area pacing
03

In context

Atrioventricular Block

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 →

Lead sponsor

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.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

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.

Inclusion criteria

  • High degree atrioventricular block
  • Cardiac surgery within 30 days of pacemaker implantation
  • Written
  • Current at or above 50%

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Any concomitant condition that results in a of less than 1 year
  • Planned for heart transplant or left ventricular assist device
  • Current dialysis
  • Not suitable according to the opinion of the investigators due to characteristics that interfere with the adherence to the study protocol.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

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.

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.

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.

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.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
110 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Conventional pacing strategy

    This arm will receive a conventional pacemaker lead if they have atrioventricular block after cardiac surgery

    Device: Conventional pacing strategy

  • Experimental
    Left bundle branch area 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

Interventions

  • DeviceLeft bundle branch area pacing

    Conventional pacing strategy versus conduction system pacing strategy in the form of left bundle branch area pacing

  • DeviceConventional pacing strategy

    Conventional pacing strategy

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in left ventricular ejection fraction

    Change in left ventricular ejection fraction between enrollment and end of follow-up

    Time frame: 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter

    Change in LVEDD from enrollment to end of study follow-up

    Time frame: 1 year

  2. Clinical endpoints - composite

    Composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, device-related hospitalization

    Time frame: 1 year

  3. All-cause mortality

    All-cause mortality

    Time frame: 1 year

  4. Heart failure hospitalization

    Heart failure hospitalization

    Time frame: 1 year

  5. Device-related hospitalization

    Device-related hospitalization

    Time frame: 1 year

  6. Quality-of-life measurement

    Quality-of-life measurement by standardized questionnaire

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

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.

Registered
Aug 26, 2026
First posted
Aug 31, 2026
StartEst.
Sep 10, 2026
Primary completionEst.
Dec 2030
CompletionEst.
Dec 2030
Last update
Aug 31, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 31, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07795541
Responsible party
Andreas Martinsson (Associate Professor, Sahlgrenska University Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 31, 2026
Start date
Sep 10, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Dec 2030 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2030 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 31, 2026

Study contacts

Andreas S Martinsson, MD, PhD
Contact
andreas.s.martinsson@vgregion.se
+46313427717
Alice David, MD
Contact
laura.david@vgregion.se
+313429684
Andreas S Martinsson, MD, PhD
principal investigator · Sahlgrensa university hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion