Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) is Recommended for Complete Heart Block with LV Dysfunction
For patients with complete heart block and left ventricular dysfunction, a biventricular pacemaker (CRT-P or CRT-D) is strongly recommended rather than conventional right ventricular pacing, as chronic RV pacing induces LV dyssynchrony and worsens heart failure outcomes. 1
Device Selection Algorithm
Step 1: Confirm Indication for Biventricular Pacing
Complete heart block with LV dysfunction represents a Class I indication for CRT when the following criteria are met: 1
- LVEF ≤35% 1, 2
- NYHA Class III/IV symptoms (or Class II with QRS ≥120 ms) 1, 2
- QRS duration ≥120 ms (strongest evidence) 1, 2
- Expected pacemaker dependency ≥95% (which complete heart block guarantees) 1, 2
Even with QRS <120 ms, CRT should be considered (Class IIa) in NYHA Class III/IV patients with LVEF ≤35% who require permanent pacing for complete heart block, as the need for continuous ventricular pacing itself creates dyssynchrony. 1
Step 2: Choose Between CRT-P vs CRT-D
The decision hinges on sudden cardiac death risk and life expectancy: 1
Select CRT-D (with defibrillator) if: 1, 3
- Ischemic cardiomyopathy (21.2% vs 8.9% one-year mortality benefit over CRT-P) 3
- Secondary prevention indication (prior cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) 1
- **Age <70 years** with reasonable life expectancy >1 year 1
- Absence of major comorbidities limiting survival 1, 4
Select CRT-P (pacemaker only) if: 1, 5
- Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (no mortality difference: 8.1% vs 6.6%) 3
- Age >75-80 years or limited life expectancy <1 year 1
- Significant comorbidities (advanced kidney disease, frailty, malignancy) 4, 5
- Permanent atrial fibrillation with lower arrhythmic risk 4
- Cost considerations in resource-limited settings 4, 5
Step 3: Special Considerations for Complete Heart Block
Biventricular pacing prevents RV pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, which is particularly important in complete heart block where 100% ventricular pacing is inevitable. 1, 2, 6
The BLOCK-HF trial demonstrated that biventricular pacing reduces the combined endpoint of mortality, HF-related urgent care, and LV end-systolic volume increase by 26% compared to RV pacing in patients with AV block and reduced LVEF. 1 This benefit was primarily driven by prevention of adverse LV remodeling. 1
Timing is critical: CRT upgrade should occur as soon as LV dysfunction is detected during RV pacing, as adverse remodeling may become partly irreversible after >5 years of RV pacing. 6 Patients with RVA-pacing <5 years showed greater LV end-diastolic diameter reduction (7.7±2.5 mm) compared to those paced >5 years (3.6±1.0 mm). 6
Atrial Fibrillation Considerations
If permanent atrial fibrillation coexists with complete heart block: 1
- CRT remains a Class IIa recommendation for NYHA III/IV, LVEF ≤35%, QRS ≥130 ms 1
- AV nodal ablation is often unnecessary since complete heart block already ensures 100% ventricular capture 1
- Program in VVIR mode with rate-responsive pacing 1
- Ensure ≥95% biventricular pacing through device diagnostics 1, 2
Expected Outcomes with CRT
Evidence from systematic reviews demonstrates: 7
- LVEF improvement: mean 3.0% (95% CI 0.9%-5.1%) 7
- Quality of life: 8-point reduction in Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire 7
- Functional status: 59% achieve ≥1 NYHA class improvement 7
- Hospitalizations: 37% reduction (95% CI 7%-57%) 7
- All-cause mortality: 22% reduction (95% CI 9%-33%) 7
In the specific context of complete heart block with HF, CRT upgrade improved NYHA class by 35% and decreased hospitalizations by 85% at one year. 6
Critical Implementation Points
Implant success rate is 93%, with 0.3% procedural mortality risk. 7 However, lead complications occur in 6.6% and device malfunctions in 5% during median 11-month follow-up. 7 The BLOCK-HF trial showed higher adverse events with CRT (83 vs 30 patients), mostly LV lead-related. 1
Programming must ensure biventricular capture through: 1
- AV interval optimization (echocardiographic or invasive) 1
- VV interval optimization 1
- Rate-responsive settings if chronotropic incompetence present 1
- Diagnostic functions to monitor pacing percentages 1
Do not use conventional dual-chamber or single-chamber RV pacing in patients with complete heart block and LV dysfunction, as this worsens outcomes through iatrogenic dyssynchrony. 1, 6