MMedXYNews
Ask AIHomeVideos
MedXY AI/MedXY News/Section: Cardiology
Cardiology

Biventricular Pacing Outperforms Conduction System Pacing in Heart Failure: Key Insights from PhysioSync-HF Trial

MedXY Editorial TeamApr 22, 2026
Biventricular pacingconduction system pacingheart failurePhysioSync-HF

Background

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) accompanied by left bundle branch block (LBBB) presents a significant clinical challenge, affecting approximately 25-30% of HF patients. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the gold standard, improving symptoms and survival. However, conduction system pacing (CSP), particularly left bundle branch area pacing, emerged as a potentially simpler and cost-effective alternative, though its comparative efficacy remained unproven until the PhysioSync-HF trial.

Study Design

This multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial enrolled 173 adults across 14 Brazilian hospitals (November 2022-December 2023). Eligible participants had HFrEF (LVEF ≤35%), symptomatic NYHA class II-III, and LBBB (QRS ≥130ms). Patients were randomized 1:1 to CSP (preferentially left bundle-branch area pacing) or BiVP. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of death, HF hospitalizations, urgent HF visits, and LVEF change at 12 months, with a noninferiority margin OR of 1.2.

Key Findings

CSP failed to meet noninferiority and was statistically inferior to BiVP (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.37-4.06; p=0.002). The CSP group showed:

  • Higher composite of death/HF hospitalizations/urgent visits (HR 2.35; 95% CI 0.99-5.61)
  • Smaller LVEF improvement (mean difference -3.8%; 95% CI 0.3-7.3%)
  • Comparable QRS narrowing, symptom scores, and biomarker reductions
  • Lower procedural/HF care costs ($7,090 savings; 95% CI $5,779-$8,648)

Expert Commentary

While CSP demonstrated cost advantages and preserved some CRT benefits, its inferiority in hard outcomes suggests BiVP remains superior for structural remodeling. Lead placement precision and procedural learning curves may have influenced results. The trial underscores the need for refined patient selection criteria if CSP is to be reconsidered in specific subgroups.

Conclusion

PhysioSync-HF provides definitive evidence against CSP as a first-line CRT strategy in HFrEF with LBBB. Clinicians should prioritize BiVP despite higher costs, while research continues to optimize CSP techniques and identify potential responder subgroups. The findings directly inform current guideline recommendations for device-based HF therapy.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Related articles

Inflammation Biomarker CRP Predicts Functional Gains from Physical Rehabilitation in Older Adults Hospitalized with Heart Failure

CardiologyOct 28, 2026

Clinical Impact of Digoxin Withdrawal in Heart Failure: Insights from the DECISION Trial

CardiologyOct 24, 2026

Aldosterone Levels and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Heart Failure: Implications for Personalized Therapy

CardiologyOct 23, 2026
Loading comments...

Most read

  1. 01Intimate Health

    Five Benefits for Women Continuing Sexual Activity After Menopause

  2. 02Intimate Health

    Why Some Women Have a Strong Sex Drive—And Why Men Shouldn't Worry About It

  3. 03Nursing & care

    How often should a couple have sex?

  4. 04Cardiology

    Precision Medicine for Long QT Syndrome Type 2: Lumacaftor Corrects Trafficking Defects and Shortens QT Interval

  5. 05General Surgery

    Optimizing Postoperative Opioid Prescriptions After Intra-Abdominal Cancer Surgery: Comparing the 5x-Multiplier and 3-Tier Models

Go deeper with MedXY AI

Explore the evidence behind the news.

Ask AI
MedXY briefing

Stay informed

Medical news and research updates, delivered to your inbox.

© 2026 MedXY
Contact usAbout usPrivacy PolicyMedXY story