Recommendations for less than substantial ventricular pacing

COR	LOE	Recommendations	References
2a	B-R	1. In patients with an indication for permanent pacing with LVEF >35% who are anticipated to require less than substantial ventricular pacing, it is reasonable to choose a traditional RV lead placement and minimize RVP.	14,40,52
2b	C-LD	2. In patients with an indication for permanent pacing with LVEF 36%−50% who are anticipated to require less than substantial ventricular pacing, a CSP lead with HBP or LBBAP may be considered as an alternative to an RVP lead.	40,52
2b	C-LD	3. In patients with an indication for permanent pacing, LVEF 36%−50% and LBBB, and who are anticipated to require less than substantial ventricular pacing, CPP may be considered to potentially improve symptoms and LVEF.	25,45,52,58,63–66
2b	C-LD	4. In patients who are undergoing permanent pacing with normal LVEF and are anticipated to require less than substantial ventricular pacing, an LBBAP lead may be considered as an alternative to an RVP lead.	46,52
3: No Benefit	B-R	5. In patients with normal LVEF who are anticipated to require less than substantial ventricular pacing, CRT with BiV pacing is not indicated.	14,34,38,39,53,54,67,68