Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): British Heart Foundation (BHF) and Local Departmental Research Funding Background Fusion pacing as part of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) requires correct timing of left ventricular pacing to right ventricular activation. The SyncAV algorithm, available in Quadra Allure and Assura CRT devices, is designed to allow optimal fusion pacing by dynamic reassessment of intrinsic atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction to adjust the paced/sensed AV delay. However, it is unclear whether AV optimisation continues to maintain resynchronisation during exercise, or whether potential loss of fusion pacing with changes in intrinsic AV conduction could lead to decreased exercise capacity. Cardio-pulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard method for assessing exercise performance. Purpose To assess exercise capacity using the SyncAV algorithm for fusion pacing, compared with conventional biventricular pacing with fixed AV delays (AVD) for CRT. Methods Patients at least 6 months post-CRT implant were recruited in a prospective single-centre randomized single-blind crossover study. Patients performed 2 CPET tests at least 1 week apart, with randomization to either SyncAV with fusion pacing or conventional biventricular pacing with a fixed AVD of 120ms. All other programming was optimised to produce the narrowest QRS duration possible at rest in each case. Results Nine patients (5 male, age 70 ± 10 years, mean ± standard deviation) were recruited, with both ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology of heart failure. All had clinical or echocardiographic response to CRT. There was no difference in peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2max) between programming (1.47 ± 0.57 vs 1.50 ± 0.65 l/min for fixed AVD and SyncAV groups respectively, p = 0.59), or oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (VT1) (0.72 ± 0.20 vs 0.74 ± 0.25 l/min, p = 0.57). There was no difference in oxygen pulse (V̇O2/heart rate - a surrogate of stroke volume) at peak (12.3 ± 3.8 vs 13 ± 5.0 ml/beat , p = 0.28) or VT1 (8.4 ± 2.2 vs 8.7 ± 2.1 ml/beat, p = 0.67) and also no change in time to V̇O2max (1400 ± 491 vs 1367 ± 543 seconds, p = 0.38) or VT1 (518 ± 211 vs 534 ± 200 seconds, p = 0.75). Average heart rate at the median stage of exercise showed no difference between programming (96 ± 18 vs 93 ± 15 bpm respectively, p = 0.32). There was no difference in BORG Rating of Perceived Exertion (BORG-RPE) score at either peak exercise (median 19 [interquartile range (IQR) 2] vs 17 [IQR 2], p = 0.23) or at the median stage of exercise (median 13 [IQR 1] vs 13 [IQR 2], p = 0.30). Conclusion Fusion pacing using the SyncAV algorithm does not appear to improve exercise capacity compared to optimised conventional biventricular pacing with fixed AVD.

AV‐optimized conduction system pacing for treatment of AV dromotropathy: A randomized, cross‐over study

Electrical Synchrony Optimization for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Bradycardia and Heart Failure.

His-bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing following atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction: A multicenter, randomized, crossover study-The ALTERNATIVE-AF trial

Reduction of Unnecessary Right Ventricular Pacing by Managed Ventricular Pacing and Search AV+ Algorithms in Pacemaker Patients: 12-Month Follow-Up Results of a Randomized Study.

Conduction system pacing versus conventional pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: Nonrandomized, on-treatment comparison

Conduction System Stimulation to Avoid Left Ventricle Dysfunction

Biventricular versus Conduction System Pacing after Atrioventricular Node Ablation in Heart Failure Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

P508Biventricular pacing versus His bundle pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS

The Clinical Observation of Auto AV Search Algorithm in Dual Chamber Pacemaker.

Clinical outcomes in patients with atrioventricular block undergoing pacemaker: 3-year follow-up

Assessment of the SyncAV fusion pacing algorithm on exercise capacity in patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy device

Is conduction system pacing more effective than right ventricular pacing in reducing atrial high-rate episodes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction?

Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group

Improvement of myocardial contractility with leadless endocardial single-lead atrial sensing ventricular pacing in patients with prolonged PQ interval

Conduction System Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Conduction system pacing associated with reduced heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared with traditional right ventricular pacing in the Medicare population

Efficacy of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in the treatment of patients with atrioventricular block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

B-PO01-022 EXPLORING THE OPTIMAL PACING MODALITY IN PATIENTS WITH HIGH-GRADE ATRIOVENTRICULAR BLOCK AND RIGHT BUNDLE BRANCH BLOCK PATTERN: A PILOT STUDY

Behavior of Leadless atrioventricular synchronous pacing during exercise.

Mid-term clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to accurate right ventricular septal pacing

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block