Evidence Hub

Clinical Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing vs Right Ventricular Septal Pacing in Atrioventricular Block: The CSPACE Randomized Controlled Trial

C. Chow, Chiew Wong, N. Sutherland, M. Obeyesekere, G. R. Wong, C. Eastwood, Julie Abduloska, Christian Davey et al.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2025

202 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrioventricular (AV) block receiving right ventricular (RV) pacing are at risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), need for upgrade to biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and mortality. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a promising pacing strategy to mitigate these adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between RV septal pacing (RVsP) and CSP.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed in 202 consecutive patients with pacing indication for AV block without CRT indication, with a 1:1 randomization allocation ratio between RVsP and CSP. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of PICM, upgrade to biventricular CRT, HFH, and all-cause mortality. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

RESULTS

CSP was successful in 89 of 101 patients (88.1%). After a mean follow-up period of 25.2 ± 11.8 months, CSP was associated with lower composite endpoint (7.17 vs 20.69 events per 100 person-years; HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.19-0.64; P < 0.001) primarily driven by lower PICM (CSP 4.58 vs RVsP 14.69 events per 100-person-years; HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.15-0.67; P = 0.002) and need for CRT upgrade (0 vs 1.92 events per 100-person-years; HR: 1.65e-9; 95% CI: 0-∞; P = 0.043). There was no difference in HFH (CSP 0.48 vs RVsP 2.92 events per 100-person years; HR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02-1.37, P = 0.057) or all-cause…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 202 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free