TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia
T2 - systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Abdin, Amr
AU - Aktaa, Suleman
AU - Vukadinovic, Davor
AU - Arbelo, Elena
AU - Burri, Harran
AU - Glikson, Michael
AU - Meyer, Christian
AU - Munyombwe, Theresa
AU - Nielsen, Jens Cosedis
AU - Ukena, Christian
AU - Vernooy, Kevin
AU - Gale, Chris P.
N1 - Funding Information:
HB received honoraria for lectures and scientific advice from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. MG is supported by grants from Biotronik, Pfizer and Philips and received honoraria for Boston Scientific. JC Nielsen is supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0018658 and NNF17OC0029148). CU has received honoraria for lectures and scientific advice from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Medtronic, Pfizer, ReCor Medical. KV is supported by grants from the Abbott and Medtronic and received honoraria for lectures and scientific advice from Abbott, Boston Scientific and Medtronic. CPG is supported by grants from the Abbott and BMS and received honoraria for lectures and scientific advice from Amgen and AstraZeneca. AA, SA, DV, EA, CM and TM: none declared.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - Background Right ventricular pacing (RVP) may cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony leading to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the outcomes of RVP with His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker (PPM) for bradyarrhythmia. Methods and results Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing HBP or LBP with RVP for de novo PPM implantation between 01 January 2013 and 17 November 2020 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), LVEF, QRS duration, lead revision, atrial fibrillation, procedure parameters, and pacing metrics. Overall, 9 studies were included (6 observational, 3 randomised). HBP compared with RVP was associated with decreased HFH (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.94), preservation of LVEF (mean difference [MD] 0.81, 95% CI - 1.23 to 2.85 vs. - 5.72, 95% CI - 7.64 to -3.79), increased procedure duration (MD 15.17 min, 95% CI 11.30-19.04), and increased lead revisions (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.17-15.70, p = 0.0005). LBBP compared with RVP was associated with shorter paced QRS durations (MD 5.6 ms, 95% CI - 6.4 to 17.6) vs. (51.0 ms, 95% CI 39.2-62.9) and increased procedure duration (MD 37.78 min, 95% CI 20.04-55.51). Conclusion Of the limited studies published, this meta-analysis found that HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in maintaining physiological ventricular activation as an initial pacing strategy.
AB - Background Right ventricular pacing (RVP) may cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony leading to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the outcomes of RVP with His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker (PPM) for bradyarrhythmia. Methods and results Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing HBP or LBP with RVP for de novo PPM implantation between 01 January 2013 and 17 November 2020 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), LVEF, QRS duration, lead revision, atrial fibrillation, procedure parameters, and pacing metrics. Overall, 9 studies were included (6 observational, 3 randomised). HBP compared with RVP was associated with decreased HFH (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.94), preservation of LVEF (mean difference [MD] 0.81, 95% CI - 1.23 to 2.85 vs. - 5.72, 95% CI - 7.64 to -3.79), increased procedure duration (MD 15.17 min, 95% CI 11.30-19.04), and increased lead revisions (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.17-15.70, p = 0.0005). LBBP compared with RVP was associated with shorter paced QRS durations (MD 5.6 ms, 95% CI - 6.4 to 17.6) vs. (51.0 ms, 95% CI 39.2-62.9) and increased procedure duration (MD 37.78 min, 95% CI 20.04-55.51). Conclusion Of the limited studies published, this meta-analysis found that HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in maintaining physiological ventricular activation as an initial pacing strategy.
KW - Cardiac pacing
KW - His-bundle pacing
KW - Left bundle branch pacing
KW - Clinical outcomes
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Systematic review
KW - ATRIOVENTRICULAR-BLOCK
KW - INDUCED CARDIOMYOPATHY
KW - PERFORMANCE
KW - PREDICTORS
U2 - 10.1007/s00392-021-01927-7
DO - 10.1007/s00392-021-01927-7
M3 - (Systematic) Review article
C2 - 34410461
SN - 1861-0684
VL - 111
SP - 1198
EP - 1209
JO - Clinical research in cardiology
JF - Clinical research in cardiology
IS - 11
ER -