# Acute Effects of Fusion Pacing Versus Standard CRT on Myocardial Function in Heart Failure Patients with LBBB

**Authors:** Michał Kucio, Andrzej Kułach, Tomasz Skowerski, Mariusz Bałys, Mariusz Skowerski, Grzegorz Smolka

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/jcm14134433 · Journal of Clinical Medicine · 2025-06-22

## TL;DR

This study compares the acute effects of fusion pacing and standard CRT on heart function in patients with heart failure and LBBB, finding electrical improvements but no immediate hemodynamic benefits.

## Contribution

The study introduces the acute comparison of fusion pacing versus standard CRT using beat-to-beat echocardiography in heart failure patients.

## Key findings

- Fusion pacing further narrowed QRS duration compared to standard biventricular pacing.
- Fusion pacing showed more homogeneous left ventricular strain and improved right ventricular function.
- No significant changes in stroke volume or global LV strain were observed with either pacing method.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) plays an established role in the management of heart failure, a significant proportion of patients do not respond despite appropriate candidate selection. The optimization of CRT pacing is one strategy to enhance response. Fusion pacing algorithms aim to synchronize intrinsic right ventricular (RV) conduction with paced left ventricular (LV) activation, resulting in a more physiological ventricular depolarization pattern. This approach may improve electrical synchrony and enhance left ventricular contraction compared to conventional simultaneous biventricular pacing. The aim of this study was to compare the acute, beat-to-beat effects of standard biventricular pacing versus fusion pacing on myocardial function, using both conventional and speckle-tracking echocardiography in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods: In total, 27 heart failure patients (21 men and 6 women) with reduced ejection fraction (EF < 35%), left bundle branch block (QRS > 150 ms), and newly implanted CRT-D systems (Abbott) underwent echocardiographic assessment immediately after device implantation. Echocardiographic parameters—including left atrial strain, left ventricular strain, TAPSE, mitral and tricuspid valve function, and cardiac output—were measured at 5 min intervals under three different pacing conditions: pacing off, simultaneous biventricular pacing, and fusion pacing using Abbott’s SyncAV® algorithm. Results: In our study, CRT led to a significant shortening of the QRS duration from 169 ± 19 ms at baseline to 131 ± 17 ms with standard biventricular pacing, and further to 118 ± 16 ms with fusion pacing (p < 0.05). Despite the electrical improvement, no significant changes were observed in global longitudinal strain (GLS: −9.15 vs. −9.39 vs. −9.13; p = NS), left ventricular stroke volume (67.5 mL vs. 68.4 mL vs. 68.5 mL; p = NS), or left atrial parameters including strain, area, and ejection fraction. However, fusion pacing was associated with more homogeneous segmental strain patterns, improved aortic valve closure time, and enhanced right ventricular function as reflected by tissue Doppler-derived S’. Conclusions: Immediate QRS narrowing observed in CRT patients—particularly with fusion pacing optimization—is associated with a more homogeneous pattern of left ventricular contractility and improvements in selected measures of mechanical synchrony. However, these acute electrical changes do not translate into immediate improvements in stroke volume, global LV strain, or left atrial function. Longer-term follow-up is needed to determine whether the electrical benefits of CRT, especially with fusion pacing, lead to meaningful hemodynamic improvements.

## Linked entities

- **Diseases:** heart failure (MONDO:0005252)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** Heart Failure (MESH:D006333), LBBB (MESH:D002037), stroke (MESH:D020521), left ventricular contraction (MESH:D018487)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12249893/full.md

## Figures

2 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12249893/full.md

## References

24 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12249893/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12249893