Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why the study?
Whether improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters with conduction system pacing translate into hard clinical outcomes compared to biventricular pacing remained uncertain due to scarce data.
Does conduction system pacing reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients indicated for CRT compared to biventricular pacing?
Comparison
Conduction system pacing vs biventricular pacing
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 4 randomized and 17 observational studies
Follow-up
Median 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months)
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May support CSP consideration in CRT candidates; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm benefit.
Structured PICO
Does conduction system pacing reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients indicated for CRT compared to biventricular pacing?
P
Population
4,327 patients indicated to receive a CRT device, pooled from 21 studies (4 randomized and 17 observational)
I
Intervention
Conduction system pacing (CSP)
C
Comparator
Conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP)
O
Outcome
Coprimary endpoints of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH)hard clinical
Conduction system pacing may offer superior clinical outcomes, including reduced mortality and heart failure hospitalizations, compared to traditional biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Limitations
- Lack of large-scale randomized trials
Cite This Study
Kim et al. (2023) studied this question.