HTHooi Khee Teo

Hooi Khee Teo

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Hooi Khee Teo has a total of 17 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Conduction System Pacing Versus Biventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Pacing: Meta-Analysis on Outcomes in Patients with Non-Left Bundle Branch Block

    by Xuanming Pung, Joe J. L. Chua, Khi Yung Fong, Yi Yi Chua, Germaine J. M. Loo, Jonathan W. S. Ong, Julian C. K. Tay, Hooi Khee Teo, Yue Wang, Colin Yeo, et al.

    Background and Objectives: The role of biventricular pacing (BVP) is less well-established in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without left bundle branch block (LBBB). Conduction system pacing (CSP) has gained significant traction and may provide a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP in these patients. A few small studies studying this question have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to compare procedural and clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP in this group. Materials and Methods: An online literature search was systematically conducted to retrieve studies comparing CSP and BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Four studies with 461 patients were included. Results: Implant-derived paced QRS duration was significantly shorter (mean difference [MD] −19.7 ms, 95% confidence interval [CI] −36.2 to −3.3, p = 0.0355) with CSP. Echocardiographic response with significantly greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 5.6%, 95% CI 3.1 to 8.0, p = 0.0106) was also observed with CSP. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes such as all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.60, p = 0.133) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56, p = 0.129). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that CSP may have better electrical synchrony and echocardiographic response compared to BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Further randomized studies with longer follow-up may be required to elucidate potential benefits in clinical outcomes.


  • Open Access

    Riding the Highs and Lows of the Conduction System Pacing Wave—Our Experience

    by Hooi Khee Teo, Yi Yi Chua, Julian Cheong Kiat Tay, Xuanming Pung, Jonathan Wei Sheng Ong, Germaine Jie Min Loo, Eric Tien Siang Lim, Kah Leng Ho, Daniel Thuan Tee Chong, Chi Keong Ching

    Conduction system pacing started with His bundle pacing (HBP) and then rapidly switched gears into left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). We describe our center’s experience with LBBP using either lumenless leads (LLLs) or stylet-driven leads (SDLs). Patients who were admitted to two tertiary centers between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2024 and met the guidelines for pacing were recruited and prospectively followed up. A total of 124 patients underwent permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation using the LBBP technique with a mean follow-up of 19.7 ± 13.3 months. In total, 90 patients were implanted with LLLs and 34 with SDLs. There was no significant difference in the procedural time and final paced QRS duration, but fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the SDLs (26.2 ± 17.7 min vs. 17.5 ± 13.0 min, respectively, p = 0.026). The on-table impedance values were also significantly higher in the LLLs, and this persisted throughout the follow-up. There were no differences in the rates of complications. The success of conduction system pacing implantation with SDLs and LLLs is comparable with reasonable safety and reliable outcomes. Good pre-implant patient selection will contribute to improved outcomes.

  • Open Access

    Native mitral valve endocarditis masquerading as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

    by Hooi Khee Teo, Alex Wx Tan, Ignasius A Jappar