Atrioventricular BlockOPTI-PACSNCT07795541
OPTImizing Lead Placement in Patients Requiring Pacemaker After Cardiac Surgery
A study testing Left bundle branch area pacing and Conventional pacing strategy in people with Atrioventricular Block and Cardiac Surgery, run by Sahlgrenska University Hospital.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Atrioventricular Block, Cardiac Surgery
- What is being tested?
- Left bundle branch area pacing and Conventional pacing strategy
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 110 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 10 Sep 2026to Dec 2030
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- High degree atrioventricular block
- Cardiac surgery within 30 days of pacemaker implantation
- Written informed consent
- Current left ventricular ejection fraction at or above 50%
Who cannot join
- Any concomitant condition that results in a life expectancy 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.
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: OPTIMIZING LEAD PLACEMENT IN PATIENTS REQUIRING PACEMAKER AFTER CARDIAC SURGERY
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.
- Conditions
- Atrioventricular Block, Cardiac Surgery
- Being tested
- Left bundle branch area pacing, Conventional pacing strategy
- Keywords
- Conduction system pacing, Atrioventricular block, After cardiac surgery, Left bundle branch area pacing
- Medical subject headings
- Atrioventricular Block
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Left bundle branch area pacingDevice
Conventional pacing strategy versus conduction system pacing strategy in the form of left bundle branch area pacing
Conventional pacing strategyDevice
Conventional pacing strategy
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional pacing strategy | Active comparator | This arm will receive a conventional pacemaker lead if they have atrioventricular block after cardiac surgery Receives: Device: Conventional pacing strategy |
| Left bundle branch area pacing strategy | Experimental | This arm will receive a left bundle branch area pacing pacemaker lead if they have atrioventricular block after cardiac surgery Receives: Device: Left bundle branch area pacing |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in left ventricular ejection fraction
Change in left ventricular ejection fraction between enrollment and end of follow-up
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (6)
Change in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter
Change in LVEDD from enrollment to end of study follow-up
Measured: 1 year
Clinical endpoints - composite
Composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, device-related hospitalization
Measured: 1 year
All-cause mortality
All-cause mortality
Measured: 1 year
Heart failure hospitalization
Heart failure hospitalization
Measured: 1 year
Device-related hospitalization
Device-related hospitalization
Measured: 1 year
Quality-of-life measurement
Quality-of-life measurement by standardized questionnaire
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Aug 2026
- Study start10 Sep 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completionDec 2030 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2030 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Atrioventricular BlockStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 110 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Andreas Martinsson, Sahlgrenska University Hospital
- Investigators
- Andreas S Martinsson, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Sahlgrensa university hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07795541
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2025-08652-01
- Other IDs
- 20241208, ALFGBG-977905, ALFGBG-1029431, 2025
- Acronym
- OPTI-PACS
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 26 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 31 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 31 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- OPTIMIZING LEAD PLACEMENT IN PATIENTS REQUIRING PACEMAKER AFTER CARDIAC SURGERY
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07795541
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- OPTI-PACS / 2025-08652-01
- Conditions
- Atrioventricular Block, Cardiac Surgery
- Keywords
- Conduction system pacing, Atrioventricular block, After cardiac surgery, Left bundle branch area pacing
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 110 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Sahlgrenska University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Sep 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2030 (estimated)
- First posted
- 31 Aug 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional pacing strategy | Active comparator | Device: Conventional pacing strategyThis arm will receive a conventional pacemaker lead if they have atrioventricular block after cardiac surgery |
| Left bundle branch area pacing strategy | Experimental | Device: Left bundle branch area pacingThis arm will receive a left bundle branch area pacing pacemaker lead if they have atrioventricular block after cardiac surgery |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- High degree atrioventricular block
- Cardiac surgery within 30 days of pacemaker implantation
- Written informed consent
- Current left ventricular ejection fraction at or above 50%
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Any concomitant condition that results in a life expectancy 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Left bundle branch area pacingConventional pacing strategy versus conduction system pacing strategy in the form of left bundle branch area pacing | Device | Left bundle branch area pacing strategy |
| Conventional pacing strategyConventional pacing strategy | Device | Conventional pacing strategy |
Primary outcome
Change in left ventricular ejection fraction
Time frame: 1 year
Change in left ventricular ejection fraction between enrollment and end of follow-up
6 secondary outcomes
Change in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter
Time frame: 1 year
Clinical endpoints - composite
Time frame: 1 year
All-cause mortality
Time frame: 1 year
Heart failure hospitalization
Time frame: 1 year
Device-related hospitalization
Time frame: 1 year
Quality-of-life measurement
Time frame: 1 year
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 31 Aug 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Atrioventricular Block
Recruiting
SPIKE FLOW Endocardial Lead Safety and Performance Study
Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Asystole
Not yet recruiting
Belgo-Luxembourg Leadless PM Registry
Bradyarrhythmias, AV Block Complete
Recruiting
Novel Approach to Conduction System Pacing With Use of Ultrasound
Conduction Block, Atrioventricular, Bundle-Branch Block
Active, not recruitingObservational study
AVEIR DR Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Study
Cardiac Pacemaker, Arrythmia
Not yet recruiting
Head-to-Head (H2H) Comparison of Ambulatory Cardiac ECG Monitors in Japan
Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Atrial Flutter
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Andreas S Martinsson, MD, PhD principal investigator
Sahlgrensa university hospital
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Left bundle branch area pacing and Conventional pacing strategy in people with Atrioventricular Block and Cardiac Surgery, run by Sahlgrenska University Hospital.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 31 Aug 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Andreas S Martinsson, MD, PhD (+46313427717, andreas.s.martinsson@vgregion.se), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in left ventricular ejection fraction (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 31 Aug 2026.