The aim of this single centre study (“St. Ekaterina” Hospital) is to assess the effect of a second successful cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients who had already had an unsuccessful implantation of a CRT system at other medical centres in Bulgaria and were defined as “non-responders”. This is a prospective observational study. The patients have previously had an unsuccessful implantation of a left ventricular (LV) lead or the latter has not been placed in the target vessel. After the successful implantation of a new LV lead in another target vessel, the post-procedure criteria for echocardiographic (EchoCG) and clinical response were monitored. Over the period 2017–2019, 18 CRT systems have been implanted in 18 patients with an average age 65±1 years with initial heart failure (HF) according to the Classification of the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III. The average LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was 28±1%. After the successful implantation of a new LV lead, patients presented with HF class II–III and LVEF 36±1%. In the new “upgrading” procedure, 15 patients (83%) had a good clinical and EchoCG response, and two of those 15 patients were “super responders”. The remaining three patients (17%) were “poor responders”. After the good clinical and echocardiographic response to the therapy with a second successful implantation of a LV lead in another target vessel, an important question arises, whether all “non-responders” to the CRT are actually supposed to be defined as such.