[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"atrioventricular-block\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:atrioventricular-block":31},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,15,0,[8,54,89,116,139,166,196,229,253,282,307,336,362,416,445],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":32,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":42,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":43,"startDateStruct":46,"completionDateStruct":48,"leadSponsor":50,"locationsCount":53},"100644473","comparison-of-focal-cryoablation-vs-radiofrequency-cardioneuroablation-for-bradyarrhythmias-100644473",false,"NCT07671898","Comparison of Focal Cryoablation vs. Radiofrequency Cardioneuroablation for Bradyarrhythmias","Prospective Non-Randomized Comparison of Point-by-Point Cryoablation Using Freezor™ Xtra Versus Radiofrequency Ablation Using TactiFlex™ SE of Parasympathetic Ganglia (Cardioneuroablation) in Patients With Vagally-Mediated Bradyarrhythmias","CRYO-CNA vs RF","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18 to 60 years;\n* Symptomatic bradycardia (sinus bradycardia or bradycardia due to atrioventricular block, including transient);\n* Severe asymptomatic sinus bradycardia (heart rate less than 30 beats per minute);\n* Transient second- or third-degree atrioventricular block;\n* Persistent second-degree atrioventricular block;\n* Rhythm pauses greater than 6 seconds;\n* Recurrent syncope or presyncope with documented association with bradycardia (without trauma);\n* Positive response to atropine (heart rate increase ≥25% from baseline or \\>90 beats per minute) OR positive response to exercise (heart rate increase ≥25% from baseline or \\>90 beats per minute, OR conversion of second- or third-degree atrioventricular block to first-degree block or complete normalization of atrioventricular conduction during sinus rhythm);\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Chronic antiarrhythmic drug therapy (ongoing);\n* Presence of implanted pacemaker, cardiac resynchronization therapy device, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator;\n* Bradyarrhythmia secondary to medications;\n* Bradyarrhythmia secondary to electrolyte imbalance (hyperkalemia);\n* Bradyarrhythmia secondary to hypothyroidism;\n* Bradyarrhythmia secondary to obstructive sleep apnea syndrome;\n* Absence of response to pharmacological denervation (no heart rate increase after atropine administration up to maximum dose of 0.2 mg\u002Fkg);\n* Clinically significant coronary artery disease;\n* Post-myocardial infarction cardiosclerosis;\n* Hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (including surgically corrected);\n* Stable ventricular tachycardia in the setting of bradycardia;\n* History of stroke or transient ischemic attack;\n* Prior open-heart surgery;\n* Prior catheter-based coronary artery intervention or percutaneous coronary intervention;\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding; Age less than 18 years Age greater than 60 years","ALL","18 Years","60 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},60,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","Bradyarrhythmias are conditions where the heart beats too slowly, causing symptoms like dizziness, fainting, and fatigue. In some patients, these slow heart rhythms are caused by overactivity of the vagus nerve (the part of the nervous system that slows the heart down).\n\nCardioneuroablation (CNA) is a catheter-based procedure that targets and reduces the effect of these overactive nerves on the heart. It is an alternative to permanent pacemaker implantation, especially for younger patients.\n\nTraditionally, CNA is performed using radiofrequency (RF) energy to create small burns in specific areas of the heart. This study investigates whether focal cryoablation (freezing technology using the Freezor™ Xtra catheter) is as safe and effective as standard RF ablation for CNA.\n\nThis is a prospective, non-randomized study. Participants will receive either RF ablation (N=30) or cryoablation (N=30). The study will evaluate the recurrence of slow heart rhythms and fainting episodes, as well as any complications, over 12 months of follow-up.",[28,29,30,31],"Bradycardia","Syncope, Vasovagal","Sick Sinus Syndrome","Atrioventricular Block",[33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,30,31],"Cardioneuroablation,","Cryoablation","Radiofrequency Ablation","Ganglionated Plexi","Parasympathetic Nervous System","Bradyarrhythmias","Functional Bradycardia","Vasovagal Syncope","RECRUITING","2026-06-22",{"date":44,"type":45},"2026-06-26","ACTUAL",{"date":47,"type":45},"2024-09-01",{"date":49,"type":22},"2028-12-25",{"name":51,"class":52},"Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences","OTHER",1,{"id":55,"slug":56,"hasResults":11,"nctId":57,"briefTitle":58,"officialTitle":59,"acronym":60,"eligibilityCriteria":61,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":62,"targetDuration":64,"studyType":65,"phases":4,"briefSummary":66,"conditions":67,"keywords":70,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":78,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":79,"startDateStruct":81,"completionDateStruct":83,"leadSponsor":85,"locationsCount":88},"100609076","safety-performance-and-clinical-benefit-of-pacing-the-left-bundle-branch-area---post-market-clinical-follow-up-100609076","NCT07209852","Safety, Performance, and Clinical Benefit of Pacing the Left Bundle Branch Area - Post-Market Clinical Follow-up","Safety, Performance, and Clinical Benefit of Pacing the Left Bundle Branch Area - Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (SEPTA PMCF)","SEPTA PMCF","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Subjects intended to undergo initial (de novo) pacing system implant using the INGEVITY+ lead in the left bundle branch area (LBBA) and a Boston Scientific single or dual- chamber pacemaker (Note: no prior attempted pacing system components);\n2. Subjects who are indicated for and will receive a Boston Scientific pacemaker system (including the single or dual chamber pacemaker and an INGEVITY+ lead in the LBBA location) for one of the following medical conditions:\n\n   1. Symptomatic paroxysmal or permanent second- or third-degree AV block,\n   2. Symptomatic bilateral bundle branch block,\n   3. Symptomatic paroxysmal or transient sinus node dysfunction with or without associated AV conduction disorders (i.e., sinus bradycardia, sinus arrest, sinoatrial \\[SA\\] block),\n   4. Bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome, to prevent symptomatic bradycardia or some forms of symptomatic tachyarrhythmias,\n   5. Neurovascular (vasovagal) syndromes or hypersensitive carotid sinus syndromes,\n   6. Adaptive-rate pacing for patients exhibiting chronotropic incompetence and who may benefit from increased pacing rates concurrent with increases in minute ventilation and\u002For level of physical activity.\n\n      Dual-chamber and atrial tracking modes are also indicated for patients who may benefit from maintenance of AV synchrony. Dual chamber modes are specifically indicated for treatment of the following:\n   7. Conduction disorders that require restoration of AV synchrony, including varying degrees of AV block,\n   8. VVI intolerance (i.e., pacemaker syndrome) in the presence of persistent sinus rhythm,\n   9. Low cardiac output or congestive heart failure secondary to bradycardia;\n3. Subjects willing and capable of providing informed consent and participating in all testing and clinic visits associated with the clinical study at an approved clinical study location and at the intervals defined by protocol;\n4. Subjects who are ≥18 years of age, and of legal age to give informed consent specific to state and national law.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Subjects meeting guideline indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the absence of a bradycardia indication;\n2. Subjects with a known or suspected sensitivity to dexamethasone acetate (DXA);\n3. Subjects with a Mechanical Tricuspid Valve;\n4. Subjects requiring hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis;\n5. Subject has or has had implanted any pacemaker, ICD system, including subcutaneous, transvenous or leadless systems (Note: except for temporary pacing wire at time of enrollment) or CRT system;\n6. Subjects currently on an active organ transplant list;\n7. Subject referred to or admitted for hospice care;\n8. Subjects with a documented life expectancy of less than 12 months;\n9. Subjects enrolled in any other concurrent study (unless prior approval is received from the Sponsor);\n10. Subjects who are, or plan to become pregnant during the course of the study or are breastfeeding at time of enrollment;\n11. Subjects who are unable or unwilling to comply with the follow-up schedule, including those living at such a distance from the investigational site that attending follow-up visits would be unusually difficult or burdensome.",{"count":63,"type":22},140,"3 Years","OBSERVATIONAL","The goal of this observational post-market clinical Follow-up study is to learn about the long-term safety, performance, and clinical benefits of pacing the left bundle branch area (LBBAP) using the INGEVITY+ pacemaker lead in patients with bradycardia who need a pacemaker.",[28,31,68,69],"Sinus Node Dysfunction","Bundle-Branch Block",[71,72,73,74,75,76,77],"Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP)","INGEVITY+ Lead","Pacemaker","Cardiac Pacing","Conduction System Pacing","Ventricular Synchrony","Post-Market Clinical Follow-up","2026-06-03",{"date":80,"type":45},"2026-06-04",{"date":82,"type":45},"2025-12-19",{"date":84,"type":22},"2029-08-31",{"name":86,"class":87},"Boston Scientific Corporation","INDUSTRY",13,{"id":90,"slug":91,"hasResults":11,"nctId":92,"briefTitle":93,"officialTitle":94,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":95,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":96,"targetDuration":98,"studyType":65,"phases":4,"briefSummary":99,"conditions":100,"keywords":102,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":107,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":108,"startDateStruct":110,"completionDateStruct":111,"leadSponsor":113,"locationsCount":115},"100637969","biostreamcsp-cls-100637969","NCT07608822","BIO|STREAM.CSP CLS","Observation of Clinical Routine Care for Patients Implanted With BIOTRONIK Devices Used for Conduction System Pacing (CSP) With Focus on Closed Loop Stimulation (CLS)","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Enrolled in the BIO\\|STREAM.CSP registry\n* Standard indication for dual-chamber pacing due to any form of sinus node disease according to guidelines\n* DDD-CLS pacing mode activated\n* Either ≥ II degree AV block, or native PR interval ≥ 200 ms at baseline ECG with expected RVP ≥ 20%\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Implantation dates back more than 90 days\n* History of clinical AF\n* Patients intended to receive, or already received a pacing lead for traditional RV pacing, His bundle pacing or right bundle branch pacing\n* Upgrade from previous pacemaker system\n* Patients transitioning from the BIO\\|MASTER.CSP study\n* DDAF episodes present in the device memory at the time of registration",{"count":97,"type":22},150,"24 Months","This clinical study is a prospective, observational submodule of the BIO\\|STREAM.CSP registry designed to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients receiving BIOTRONIK dual-chamber pacemakers that combine conduction system pacing-specifically left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)-with Closed Loop Stimulation (CLS). The purpose of the study is to better understand how this combined pacing strategy performs in routine clinical practice and whether it may help reduce the occurrence of atrial fibrillation in patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) and concomitant atrioventricular (AV) conduction disorders.\n\nThe primary question the study seeks to answer is what the incidence of device-detected atrial fibrillation (DDAF) is over a 24-month follow-up period in patients treated with LBBAP and active CLS. Additionally, the study explores how CLS dynamically modulates pacing rates when the ventricular lead is positioned within the conduction system, and whether this physiological pacing approach may mitigate the negative effects associated with conventional right ventricular pacing.\n\nOverall, this study aims to generate real-world evidence to support optimization of pacemaker programming and to inform clinical decision-making regarding the use of CLS in combination with conduction system pacing, with the goal of improving patient outcomes and reducing atrial arrhythmia burden.",[101,31],"Sinus Node Disease",[103,104,105,106],"Conduction system pacing","Closed loop stimulation","Dual-chamber pacemaker","Left bundle branch area pacing","2026-05-29",{"date":109,"type":45},"2026-06-02",{"date":107,"type":22},{"date":112,"type":22},"2030-05-29",{"name":114,"class":87},"Biotronik SE & Co. KG",12,{"id":117,"slug":118,"hasResults":11,"nctId":119,"briefTitle":120,"officialTitle":121,"acronym":122,"eligibilityCriteria":123,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":124,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":126,"briefSummary":127,"conditions":128,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":129,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":130,"startDateStruct":132,"completionDateStruct":134,"leadSponsor":136,"locationsCount":138},"100614459","randomised-study-of-physiologic-cardiac-stimulation-in-patients-with-atrio-ventricular-conduction-disease-100614459","NCT07279870","RandomIsed sTudy of Physiologic cArdiac stimuLation in patIents With Atrio-ventricular Conduction Disease","RandomIsed sTudy of Physiologic cArdiac stimuLation in patIents With Atrio-ventricular Conduction Disease: the ITALIA Study","ITALIA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients with AV block in either sinus rhythm (SR) or permanent atrial tachycardia\u002Fatrial fibrillation (AT\u002FAF), or with slow AV conduction during AT\u002FAF, or undergoing AV node ablation + ventricular stimulation\n* male and female\n* acquired informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Class I indication to Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) or to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)\n* Ejection Fraction \\\u003C 35%\n* Life expectancy \\\u003C 2 years\n* Participation in another clinical trial which might impact on the study outcome\n* Pregnancy, except as \"In the event of an ongoing pregnancy, the doctor and patient will jointly assess, on a case-by-case basis and in the best interests of the patient, whether to propose participation in the study (random assignment to one of the two stimulation techniques) or to proceed as per clinical practice (assignment to one of the two stimulation techniques by the doctor). A screening log file of all eligible patients will be recorded, detailing the reason\u002Fs for non-randomization.\"",{"count":125,"type":22},1260,[25],"Study objective is to assess whether stimulation of the conduction system reduces cardiac decompensation events in patient follow-up, and how applicable this is in clinical practice and also to determine the impact of the studied interventions in terms of quality of life and cost-effectiveness for the treatment of patients with atrioventricular block. 1260 adult patients who are candidates for pacemaker implantation for the treatment of atrioventricular conduction disease will be randomised to stimulation of the conduction system or to the conventional stimulation.",[31],"2026-05-26",{"date":131,"type":45},"2026-05-27",{"date":133,"type":45},"2025-12-03",{"date":135,"type":22},"2031-06-30",{"name":137,"class":52},"IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna",14,{"id":140,"slug":141,"hasResults":11,"nctId":142,"briefTitle":143,"officialTitle":144,"acronym":145,"eligibilityCriteria":146,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":147,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":149,"briefSummary":150,"conditions":151,"keywords":152,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":156,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":157,"startDateStruct":159,"completionDateStruct":161,"leadSponsor":163,"locationsCount":165},"100611123","trial-evaluating-the-benefit-of-left-bundle-branch-area-stimulation-compared-with-conventional-pacing-in-post-tavi-atrioventricular-atrioventricular-block-100611123","NCT07236489","Trial Evaluating the Benefit of Left Bundle Branch Area Stimulation Compared With Conventional Pacing in Post-TAVI Atrioventricular Atrioventricular Block","Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Benefit of Left Bundle Branch Area Stimulation Compared With Conventional Pacing in Post-TAVI Atrioventricular Atrioventricular Block","LBAP-TAVI","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who have undergone TAVI for severe aortic valve disease within the past 3 months\n* Preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%)\n* Indications for pacemaker implantation according to guidelines, including :\n* Third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block\n* Second-degree AV block Mobitz type 2 or symptomatic Mobitz type 1\n* Alternating left and right bundle branch block\n* HV interval ≥ 70 ms during electrophysiological study\n* Pre-existing right bundle branch block with worsening conduction disturbances post-TAVI\n* Prolongation of QRS and PR intervals post-procedure justifying pacemaker implantation\n* Signed informed consent\n* Patient affiliated with the national health insurance system\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) \\\u003C 50% before TAVI\n* Contraindication to implantation of an endocardial pacemaker (vascular access issues, sepsis)\n* Previously implanted pacemaker\n* Patients under legal guardianship, curatorship, or judicial protection\n* Participation in another interventional therapeutic clinical trial",{"count":148,"type":22},266,[25],"Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has rapidly expanded over the past decade as a treatment for severe aortic valve stenosis, with over 14,000 procedures performed in France in 2021. A common complication following TAVI is traumatic atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation, occurring in about 10% of patients. Conventional right ventricular pacing in these cases often leads to interventricular dyssynchrony, which can impair left ventricular ejection fraction and increase the risk of hospitalization, heart failure, and mortality.\n\nCardiac resynchronization therapy via biventricular pacing is sometimes proposed as a secondary intervention but involves additional surgery. A newer pacing technique-selective left bundle branch area pacing-has been developed to provide physiological ventricular activation by stimulating conduction pathways distal to the lesion, thereby avoiding dyssynchrony. Retrospective studies suggest clinical benefits, but no prospective randomized trial has yet evaluated its efficacy compared to standard pacing.\n\nThe objective of this study is to conduct the first randomized clinical trial comparing left bundle branch area pacing versus conventional right ventricular pacing in patients requiring pacemaker implantation due to atrioventricular block after TAVI.",[31,73],[73,153,154,155],"Atrioventricular block","TAVI","LBAP","2026-04-14",{"date":158,"type":45},"2026-04-15",{"date":160,"type":45},"2025-11-25",{"date":162,"type":22},"2029-11",{"name":164,"class":52},"Nantes University Hospital",7,{"id":167,"slug":168,"hasResults":11,"nctId":169,"briefTitle":170,"officialTitle":171,"acronym":172,"eligibilityCriteria":173,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":174,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":176,"briefSummary":177,"conditions":178,"keywords":183,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":186,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":187,"startDateStruct":189,"completionDateStruct":191,"leadSponsor":193,"locationsCount":195},"100633062","remote-ecg-monitoring-post-tavi-100633062","NCT07521800","Remote ECG Monitoring Post TAVI","Remote ECG Monitoring as a Diagnostic Tool for Therapeutic Strategies After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Rationale and Design of the DRAGON-TAVI Trial.","DRAGON-TAVI","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient age over 18 years old\n* Severe aortic stenosis\n* Moderate or high cardiovascular risk based on current ESC Guidelines \"Heart Team\" qualification for TAVI\n* Written informed consent of the patient for participation in the study\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter\n* Previously known conduction disturbances\\*\\*\n* Presence of: pacemaker, CRT-P, ICD, CRT-D before or after TAVI\n* Ischaemic stroke, TIA, MI or heart surgery within 1 month before TAVI qualification\n* Haemorrhagic stroke within 1 year before TAVI qualification\n* Chronic immunosuppressive therapy\n* Comorbidities (e.g. drug addiction, alcohol abuse, emotional\u002Fmental disorders) which do not allow safe participation in the study",{"count":175,"type":22},250,[25],"The DRAGON TAVI study is a multicenter, prospective, open, randomised trial, which will enrol 250 patients, randomized 1:1 to the study group (continuous 30-day ECG monitoring with visits triggered by ECG findings) and standard care (ie. control group, which will receive the standard post op 24-48h ECG monitoring and a regular follow-up visit with standard ECG within 30 days). The duration of the study is 12 months ± 1 month.",[179,180,181,182,31],"TAVI(Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation)","Remote Monitoring","Arrythmia","Atrial Fibrillation (AF)",[154,184,185],"ECG","Monitoring","2026-04-07",{"date":188,"type":45},"2026-04-13",{"date":190,"type":45},"2023-12-01",{"date":192,"type":22},"2028-02-01",{"name":194,"class":52},"Medical University of Silesia",4,{"id":197,"slug":198,"hasResults":11,"nctId":199,"briefTitle":200,"officialTitle":201,"acronym":202,"eligibilityCriteria":203,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":204,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":206,"briefSummary":207,"conditions":208,"keywords":211,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":220,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":221,"startDateStruct":223,"completionDateStruct":225,"leadSponsor":227,"locationsCount":53},"100612203","left-bundle-branch-pacing-vs-right-ventricular-pacing-on-ahre-burden-in-patients-with-preserved-lvef-100612203","NCT07250529","Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Right Ventricular Pacing on AHRE Burden in Patients With Preserved LVEF","Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Conventional Right Ventricular Pacing on AHRE Burden in Patients With Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and High Ventricular Pacing Dependency (LBBP-AHRE Trial): A Randomized Study","LBBP-AHRE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years\n* Scheduled implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker for:\n\nPermanent complete heart block Permanent second-degree AV block (Mobitz II or Mobitz I)\n\n* Documented preserved LVEF (≥50%)\n* Sinus rhythm at baseline\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent atrial fibrillation\n* Previous atrial fibrillation ablation (catheter-based or surgical)\n* LVEF \\\u003C 50%\n* Sinus node disease\n* Transient AV block requiring pacemaker implantation\n* Significant structural or valvular heart disease\n* Requirement for pacemaker system upgrade during the study period\n* Requirement for antiarrhythmic therapy for causes other than atrial fibrillation\n* Existing pacemaker or other cardiac device requiring modification for study participation\n* Enrollment in another clinical trial that could interfere with study endpoints or pacing parameters\n* Contraindication to LBBP or associated lead implantation procedure\n* Life expectancy \\\u003C 12 months\n* Any condition judged by the investigator to compromise participation or the integrity of study data",{"count":205,"type":22},244,[25],"This prospective, randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the effect of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) compared with conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing on the cumulative duration (total time) of atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are expected to require frequent ventricular pacing.\n\nAtrial High-Rate Episodes (AHREs) are defined as episodes of atrial tachyarrhythmia that are automatically recorded by device diagnostics and detected by implanted cardiac devices. These episodes usually have an atrial rate ≥170 beats per minute and a duration ≥6 minutes. AHREs are linked to a higher risk of thromboembolic events and clinical atrial fibrillation (AF), and they may indicate subclinical AF or other atrial tachyarrhythmias.\n\nChronic RV pacing has been linked to mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, which may encourage atrial remodeling and the development of AF. LBBP provides a more physiological ventricular activation and may reduce atrial tachyarrhythmia time (AHRE time).\n\nPatients with LVEF \\>50% and atrioventricular (AV) conduction disorders requiring a dual-chamber pacemaker will be randomized to either conventional RV septal pacing or LBBP.",[182,209,31,210],"Pacemaker Therapy","Preserved Ejection Fraction",[212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219],"Left bundle branch pacing","Cardiac electrophysiology","Right ventricular pacing","AHRE burden","Preserved ejection fraction","Heart Failure","Quality of life","Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM)","2026-03-10",{"date":222,"type":45},"2026-03-13",{"date":224,"type":45},"2026-02-05",{"date":226,"type":22},"2029-06-20",{"name":228,"class":52},"University Hospital of Patras",{"id":230,"slug":231,"hasResults":11,"nctId":232,"briefTitle":233,"officialTitle":234,"acronym":235,"eligibilityCriteria":236,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":237,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":238,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":240,"briefSummary":241,"conditions":242,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":244,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":245,"startDateStruct":247,"completionDateStruct":249,"leadSponsor":251,"locationsCount":195},"100628622","left-bundle-branch-area-pacing-versus-right-ventricular-pacing-in-atrioventricular-block-with-preserved-ejection-fraction-100628622","NCT07464041","Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Atrioventricular Block With Preserved Ejection Fraction","Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With a Stylet-Driven Lead Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Multicenter Randomized Trial","NOVEL II","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients requiring permanent pacemaker implantation for the following indications:\n\n* Third-degree AV block\n* First- or second-degree AV block with an expected ventricular pacing burden ≥40%\n* Atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular response with an expected ventricular pacing burden ≥40%\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Prior implantation of a cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator\n* Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤50%\n* Indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy\n* Life expectancy ≤1 year (e.g., patients not eligible for heart transplantation due to end-stage heart failure, patients with DNR orders, those receiving hospice care after refusal of life-sustaining treatment, or patients with terminal cancer not eligible for chemotherapy or radiotherapy)","19 Years",{"count":239,"type":22},200,[25],"Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with ventricular dyssynchrony and an increased risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, which may lead to worse clinical outcomes. These adverse effects are more pronounced in patients with pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction. To overcome these limitations, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), which directly engages the cardiac conduction system to preserve physiological ventricular activation, has been increasingly adopted in clinical practice.\n\nHowever, in patients with atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥50%), evidence demonstrating the long-term clinical superiority of LBBAP over conventional RVP remains limited. As a result, both pacing strategies continue to be used in current practice. This multicenter randomized trial aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and lead stability of LBBAP using a stylet-driven extendable screw-in lead versus conventional RVP in patients with atrioventricular block and preserved ejection fraction.",[31,243,75],"Left Bunde Branch Area Pacing","2026-03-06",{"date":246,"type":45},"2026-03-11",{"date":248,"type":45},"2024-04-29",{"date":250,"type":22},"2027-06-30",{"name":252,"class":52},"Samsung Medical Center",{"id":254,"slug":255,"hasResults":11,"nctId":256,"briefTitle":257,"officialTitle":258,"acronym":259,"eligibilityCriteria":260,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":261,"enrollmentInfo":262,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":264,"briefSummary":265,"conditions":266,"keywords":269,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":244,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":273,"startDateStruct":275,"completionDateStruct":277,"leadSponsor":279,"locationsCount":281},"100614199","central-haemodynamics-and-pacing-for-av-block-100614199","NCT07276490","Central Haemodynamics and Pacing for AV Block","The Pacing in Atrioventricular Block: a Comparative Evaluation of Central Haemodynamics, Cardiac Function, and Quality of Life","PACE-CCQ","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18-80 years\n* Diagnosis of atrioventricular block\n* Expected survival \\>1 year\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF \\\u003C45%)\n* Expected ventricular pacing burden \\\u003C20%\n* Inter-arm systolic blood pressure difference \\>15 mmHg\n* Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery within the last 30 days\n* Secondary hypertension\n* Orthostatic hypotension\n* Clinically significant valvular heart disease\n* Congenital heart disease\n* Pulse wave analysis or pulse wave velocity measurement cannot be reliably performed\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Withdrawal of consent by the subject\n* Loss of contact during the study","80 Years",{"count":263,"type":22},124,[25],"A randomized, single-blind study comparing two pacing strategies in patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. This trial evaluates the impact of conduction system pacing (left bundle branch area pacing) versus standard right ventricular pacing on central hemodynamics, cardiac function, and patient quality of life over 12 months. The study will enroll 124 patients from two Estonian tertiary hospitals and measure central systolic arterial pressure as the primary outcome, with secondary assessments of arterial stiffness, echocardiographic parameters, electrical activation patterns, and quality of life scores.",[31,267,268,75],"Pacing Therapy","Right Ventricular Pacing",[270,271,272],"conduction system pacing","atrioventricular block","right ventricular pacing",{"date":274,"type":45},"2026-03-09",{"date":276,"type":45},"2025-11-28",{"date":278,"type":22},"2027-12-31",{"name":280,"class":52},"University of Tartu",2,{"id":283,"slug":284,"hasResults":11,"nctId":285,"briefTitle":286,"officialTitle":286,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":287,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":237,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":288,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":290,"briefSummary":291,"conditions":292,"keywords":295,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":297,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":298,"startDateStruct":300,"completionDateStruct":302,"leadSponsor":304,"locationsCount":306},"100484236","preventive-effect-of-left-bundle-branch-area-pacing-versus-right-ventricular-pacing-on-all-cause-death-heart-failure-progression-and-ventricular-dyssynchrony-in-patients-with-substantial-ventricular-pacing-protect-sync-multicenter-prospective-randomized-controlled-trial-100484236","NCT05585411","PReventive Effect Of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus righT vEntricular paCing on All Cause deaTh, Heart Failure Progression, and Ventricular dysSYNChrony in Patients With Substantial Ventricular Pacing (PROTECT-SYNC): Multicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. At least 19 years old and willing and capable to give informed consent\n2. Patients who is willing and able to comply with the prescribed follow-up tests and schedule of evaluations.\n\n3 Scheduled to receive a pacemaker implant 4. Substantial percentage of V pacing rate (\\>40%) is anticipated\n\nExclusion criteria:\n\n1. Incapacitated or unable to read or write\n2. Patient who is an indication of ICD or CRT\n3. History of prosthetic valve surgery on tricuspid valve\n4. Prior myocardial infarction including ventricular septum\n5. Life expectancy \\\u003C 12 months due to any condition\n6. Unavailable for at least 24 months of follow-up visits\n7. Pregnant or breastfeeding at the time of signing consent\n8. Prior Heart transplant surgery\n9. Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava (PLSVC)",{"count":289,"type":22},450,[25],"PROTECT-SYNC study is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 7 medical centers across Republic of Korea will enroll 450 patients during 2 years of enrollment period, and followed for 2 years of follow-up period. The purpose of this study to compare the clinical outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) compared to Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP) in bradyarrhythmia patients who require high burden of ventricular pacing (\\>40%).",[293,31,294],"Bradyarrhythmia","Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing",[296,268,217,153],"Left Bundle Branch Area pacing","2025-12-30",{"date":299,"type":45},"2026-01-05",{"date":301,"type":45},"2022-11-01",{"date":303,"type":22},"2026-11-01",{"name":305,"class":52},"Yonsei University",8,{"id":308,"slug":309,"hasResults":11,"nctId":310,"briefTitle":311,"officialTitle":312,"acronym":313,"eligibilityCriteria":314,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":315,"targetDuration":64,"studyType":65,"phases":4,"briefSummary":317,"conditions":318,"keywords":320,"overallStatus":326,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":327,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":328,"startDateStruct":330,"completionDateStruct":332,"leadSponsor":334,"locationsCount":53},"100614408","pace-af-prospective-analysis-of-cardiac-electrostimulation-and-atrial-fibrillation-100614408","NCT07279207","PACE-AF: Prospective Analysis of Cardiac Electrostimulation and Atrial Fibrillation","Prospective Analysis of Cardiac Electrostimulation and Atrial Fibrillation (PACE-AF)","PACE-AF","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* • Age ≥ 18 years\n\n  * Implantation of a dual-chamber permanent pacemaker\n  * Ability to provide informed consent\n  * Willingness to participate in long-term follow-up\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* • Single-chamber pacemaker or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy device at baseline\n\n  * Life expectancy \\\u003C 1 year due to non-cardiac comorbidities\n  * Inability to comply with follow-up visits or device interrogation\n  * Participation in another clinical trial that could interfere with study endpoints",{"count":316,"type":22},500,"PACE-AF is a prospective, observational patient registry designed to evaluate the impact of pacemaker algorithms on atrial fibrillation (AF) incidence, progression, and clinical outcomes in patients implanted with dual-chamber pacemakers. The registry aims to include 400-500 patients with longitudinal follow-up. Primary outcomes are progression to permanent AF and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, hospitalization, and cardiovascular events.",[319,30,31],"Atrial Fibrillation",[73,321,322,103,323,212,324,34,325],"Dual-chamber pacing","Pacemaker algorithms","His bundle pacing","Catheter ablation","Arrhythmia prevention","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2025-11-30",{"date":329,"type":45},"2025-12-12",{"date":331,"type":22},"2025-12",{"date":333,"type":22},"2028-12",{"name":335,"class":52},"Ilya Lukin",{"id":337,"slug":338,"hasResults":11,"nctId":339,"briefTitle":340,"officialTitle":341,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":342,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":343,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":65,"phases":4,"briefSummary":345,"conditions":346,"keywords":349,"overallStatus":326,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":353,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":354,"startDateStruct":356,"completionDateStruct":358,"leadSponsor":360,"locationsCount":281},"100561246","factors-affecting-selection-of-leadless-pacemaker-and-atrioventricular-synchronous-pacing-status-100561246","NCT06587672","Factors Affecting Selection of Leadless Pacemaker and Atrioventricular Synchronous Pacing Status","Factors Affecting Selection of Leadless Pacemaker in Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Atrioventricular Synchronous Pacing Status With a Micra AV: a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients diagnosed with atrioventricular conduction block, meeting the indications for dual-chamber leadless pacemakers as per the \"Chinese Expert Consensus on Clinical Application of Leadless Pacemakers (2022)\".\n2. Age ≥18 years.\n3. Expected lifespan ≥1 year.\n4. Consent to sign an informed consent form and cooperate in the collection of baseline data and subsequent follow-ups\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients anticipated to have a high ventricular pacing proportion (\\>40%) and with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%.\n2. Patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and a high expected ventricular pacing proportion.\n3. Post-tricuspid valve mechanical valve replacement surgery.\n4. Patients with inferior vena cava pathway anomalies, precluding passage of the leadless pacemaker's delivery sheath.\n5. Patients with an expected lifespan of less than 1 year. 6 Patients who are pregnant, planning pregnancy, or undergoing cardiac transplantation.",{"count":344,"type":22},112,"This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study ,the aim of this study is to find factors affecting selection of double-chamber leadless pacemaker in patients with atrioventricular block and ambulatory atrioventricular synchronous pacing status over time using a leadless ventricular pacemaker.",[73,31,347,348],"Clinical Trials","Pacing",[350,351,153,352],"Leadless pacing","Atrioventricular synchrony","Atrial contraction","2024-09-04",{"date":355,"type":45},"2024-09-19",{"date":357,"type":22},"2024-09-15",{"date":359,"type":22},"2027-07-31",{"name":361,"class":52},"Xiaohan Fan",{"id":363,"slug":364,"hasResults":11,"nctId":365,"briefTitle":366,"officialTitle":367,"acronym":368,"eligibilityCriteria":369,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":370,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":65,"phases":4,"briefSummary":372,"conditions":373,"keywords":395,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":406,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":407,"startDateStruct":409,"completionDateStruct":411,"leadSponsor":413,"locationsCount":415},"100541040","contemporary-cardiac-stimulation-in-clinical-practice-left-biventricular-right-and-conduction-system-pacing-100541040","NCT06324682","ConTempoRary Cardiac Stimulation in Clinical practicE: lEft, BivEntriculAr, Right, and conDuction System Pacing","Evaluation of conTempoRary Cardiac Stimulation in Clinical practicE: lEft, BivEntriculAr, Right, and conDuction System Pacing","TREEBEARD","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Indication for cardiac stimulation\n* Having performed the implantation of a device for cardiac stimulation\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\\u003C 18 years;\n* Pregnancy status;",{"count":371,"type":22},8400,"The goal of this observational study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients undergoing permanent cardiac pacing and to compare procedural efficacy and safety of different implantation approaches in the clinical practice of the participating centres. The contribution of non-fluoroscopic anatomical and electrophysiological reconstruction systems to device implantation procedures will also be evaluated.\n\nParticipants \\[patients over 18 years old with an indication to receive a definitive pacemaker\u002Fintracardiac defibrillator implant\\] will receive a permanent cardiac pacing implant as requested according to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines; the investigators will evaluate procedural efficacy and safety of different implantation approaches.",[374,31,375,319,293,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383,384,69,385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392,393,394],"Arrhythmias, Cardiac","Reduced Systolic Function","Ventricular Tachycardia","Ventricular Dysfunction","Ventricular Fibrillation","Ventricular Arrythmia","Atrioventricular Nodal Disease","Atrioventricular Conduction Defects","Atrioventricular Block Complete","Atrioventricular Block Incomplete","Atrioventricular Junctional Rhythm","Left Bundle-Branch Block","Heart Failure, Systolic","Block;Atrioventricular","Block; Arrhythmic","Block; Mobitz","Block, Heart","Block, Fascicular","Block Branch Bundle Left","Heart Failure，Congestive","Heart Arrhythmia",[396,397,31,293,377,398,75,399,400,401,402,403,404,382,405,379,378,376],"Pace maker (PM)","Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)","Cardiac Resynchronization therapy","His Pacing","Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)","CRT","CSP","Primary prevention","Secondary prevention","Heart failure","2024-03-19",{"date":408,"type":45},"2024-03-22",{"date":410,"type":45},"2023-01-01",{"date":412,"type":22},"2034-12-31",{"name":414,"class":52},"University Hospital of Ferrara",31,{"id":417,"slug":418,"hasResults":11,"nctId":419,"briefTitle":420,"officialTitle":421,"acronym":422,"eligibilityCriteria":423,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":424,"enrollmentInfo":425,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":427,"briefSummary":428,"conditions":429,"keywords":430,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":436,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":437,"startDateStruct":439,"completionDateStruct":441,"leadSponsor":443,"locationsCount":281},"100498746","pacemaker-implantation-versus-cardioneuroablation-for-functional-atrioventricular-block-100498746","NCT05774262","Pacemaker Implantation Versus Cardioneuroablation for Functional Atrioventricular Block","TELE-monitoring for Standard Pacemaker Implantation or Delayed Pacemaker Implantation After Autonomic\u002FElectrophysiologic Evaluation and Cardioneuroablation for managEment of Functional atrioventriculaR Block - Randomized Controlled Study","TELE-SPACER","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Written informed consent to participate in the study\n2. Age 18-75\n3. Indication (at least one) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for elective pacemaker implantation due to isolated (without sinus node dysfunction and bundle branch block) paroxysmal, persistent or reflex atrioventricular block:\n\n   1. Symptomatic first degree AVB (above 300 msec). Class IIaC\n   2. Symptomatic Mobitz type I second degree AVB. Class IIaC\n   3. AVB 2:1, even asymptomatic, but not during sleep. Class IIaC\n   4. Mobitz II type advanced 2nd degree AVB or complete block (3rd degree AVB). Class IC\n   5. Advanced AVB during AF regardless of symptoms, but not during sleep. Class IC\n   6. Reflex syncope in patients over 40 years of age with documented pauses within the AVB mechanism, symptomatic (\\>3 sec) or asymptomatic \\>6 sec. Class IC\n   7. Reflex syncope in patients over 40 years of age with documented pauses within AVB mechanism in the course of sick sinus syndrome (CSS). Class IC\n   8. Reflex syncope in patients over 40 years of age with documented pauses within AVB mechanism during tilt test. Class IC\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Implanted pacemaker\u002FICD\u002FCRT\n2. Sinus node dysfunction with indication for pacemaker implantation\n3. Planned ablation of the atrioventricular junction\n4. Severe prolonged bradycardia in advanced AVB requiring intravenous drugs and temporary pacing\n5. Status post cardiac surgery\n6. Acute myocardial infarction and heart failure (not related to bradycardia)\n7. Status post percutaneous valvular intervention or ablation\n8. Acute infection or any other accompanying disease which is contraindication to percutaneous procedures and\u002For implantation of a pacemaker\n9. Pregnancy, nursing or planned pregnancy within 12 months\n10. Decompensated chronic diseases (endocrine disorders, electrolyte disorders, etc.)\n11. Advanced cardiomyopathies with indication for ICD implantation in primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD)\n12. Advanced ventricular arrhythmias with indication for ICD implantation in primary or secondary prevention of SCD\n13. Persistent right or left bundle branch block\n14. Musculoskeletal diseases with separate indications for pacemaker implantation\n15. Contraindications to the procedures used in the study\n16. The presence of a mental illness or limitation of cognitive functions that prevent independent participation in the study, including the use of telemedicine services\n17. Any abnormality found that is considered by the Principal Investigator a contraindication to participate in the stidy due to data interpretation or safety issue","75 Years",{"count":426,"type":22},300,[25],"The TELE-SPACER study is a multicenter, noncommercial, physician-initiated, proof-of-concept, prospective, randomized, controlled, unblinded clinical trial and registry designed to compare two methods of treatment of patients with functional Atrio-Ventricular Block (AVB): the guidelines-recommended elective pacemaker (PM) therapy vs cardiovascular autonomic tests (CAT), electrophysiologic assessment (EPS) with referral to cardioneuroablation (CNA) and reevaluation of indications for PM therapy.\n\nThe main questions TELE-SPACER aims to answer are:\n\n* Can the investigators successfully treat functional AVB without implantable device (PM)?\n* Can the investigators prove the feasibility and safety and demonstrate non-inferiority of CNA procedure in patients with functional AVB, avoiding long-term permanent pacing, its limitations, complications and costs ?\n\nThe TELE-SPACER trial will validate the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations (level C of evidence: expert opinion) for elective PM implantation and will introduce CNA as effective treatment in the functional AVB patient population.\n\nFunctional AVB - defined as a persistent or paroxysmal AVB with a positive results of atropine test",[31],[431,432,433,434,435],"AVB","Pacemaker implantation","Cardioneuroablation","Cardiovascular autonomic testing (CAT)","Telemedicine","2024-03-14",{"date":438,"type":45},"2024-03-18",{"date":440,"type":45},"2023-09-01",{"date":442,"type":22},"2026-12-31",{"name":444,"class":52},"American Heart of Poland",{"id":446,"slug":447,"hasResults":11,"nctId":448,"briefTitle":449,"officialTitle":450,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":451,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":452,"enrollmentInfo":453,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":455,"briefSummary":456,"conditions":457,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":326,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":458,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":459,"startDateStruct":461,"completionDateStruct":463,"leadSponsor":465,"locationsCount":53},"100517918","the-impact-of-lbbap-vs-rvp-on-the-incidence-of-new-onset-atrial-fibrillation-in-patients-with-atrioventricular-block-100517918","NCT06023784","The Impact of LBBAP vs RVP on the Incidence of New-onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Atrioventricular Block","The Impact of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing on the Incidence of New-onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients aged 18-85;\n* AV block patients with ventricular pacing indications and the expected rate of ventricular pacing(VP)\\> 40%, including (a) third-degree AV block; (b) second degree AV block (type II); (c) intermittent advanced AV block with expected VP\\>40%; (d) symptomatic first degree AV block and PR interval on ECG \\> 300ms;\n* Signed informed consent;\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Baseline echocardiographic assessment of patients with impaired LV function (LVEF\\\u003C50%);\n* Patients with the history of atrial fibrillation;\n* Having difficulties in follow-up: Those who cannot accept 2-year follow-up on time due to physical condition or other reasons;\n* Pacemaker replacement without new implanted ventricular electrodes;\n* Surgery is required within 1 year due to severe structural heart disease;\n* Patients with tricuspid mechanical valve replacement, or congenital heart disease (including transposition of the great arteries, or permanent left superior vena cava, etc);\n* AV block resulting from: (a) Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy(HCM), (b) ventricular septal defect repair, and those who are unlikely to achieve successful LBBAP procedure.","85 Years",{"count":454,"type":22},530,[25],"This is a single-center, randomized controlled study. The aim of this study is to compare the impact of left bundle branch area pacing versus traditional right ventricular pacing on the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with atrioventricular block.",[294,268,31,319],"2023-09-03",{"date":460,"type":45},"2023-09-05",{"date":462,"type":22},"2023-09-30",{"date":464,"type":22},"2030-12-31",{"name":466,"class":52},"Peking Union Medical College Hospital"]