Optimising pacemaker therapy and medical therapy in pacemaker patients for heart failure: protocol for the OPT-PACE randomised controlled trial

Is conduction system pacing a panacea for pacemaker therapy?

INTRODUCTION

While supported by robust evidence and decades of clinical experience, right ventricular apical pacing for bradycardia is associated with a risk of progressive left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction can result in limited electrical resynchronization due to anatomical constraints and epicardial stimulation. In both settings, directly stimulating the conduction system below the atrio-ventricular node (either the bundle of His or the left bundle branch area) has potential to overcome these limitations. Conduction system pacing has met with considerable enthusiasm in view of the more physiological electrical conduction pattern, is rapidly becoming the preferred option of pacing for bradycardia, and is gaining momentum as an alternative to conventional biventricular pacing.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of the current efficacy and safety data for both people requiring treatment for bradycardia and the management of heart failure with conduction delay and discusses the possible future roles for conduction system pacing in routine clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Conduction system pacing might be the holy grail of pacemaker therapy without the disadvantages of current approaches. However, hypothesis and enthusiasm are no match for robust data, demonstrating at least equivalent efficacy and safety to standard approaches.

Most UK cardiovascular disease trial protocols feature criteria that exclude ethnic minority participants: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols to identify the proportion featuring eligibility criteria that may disproportionately exclude ethnic minority (EM) participants.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, January 2014-June 2022, to identify UK CVD RCT protocols. We extracted nonclinical eligibility criteria from trial protocols and inductively categorized the trials by their language, consent, and broad (ambiguous) criteria. Findings are narratively reported.

RESULTS

Of the seventy included RCT protocols, most (87.1%; 61/70) mentioned consent within the eligibility criteria, with more than two-thirds (68.9%; 42/61) indicating a requirement for 'written' consent. Alternative consent pathways that can aid EM participation were absent. English language requirement was present in 22.9% (16/70) of the studies and 37.1% (26/70) featured broad criteria that are open to interpretation and subject to recruiter bias. Only 4.3% (3/70) protocols mentioned the provision of translation services.

CONCLUSION

Most UK CVD trial protocols feature eligibility criteria that potentially exclude EM groups. Trial eligibility criteria must be situated within a larger inclusive recruitment framework, where ethnicity is considered alongside other intersecting and disadvantaging identities.