Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: his bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing

Introduction and objective Cardiac resynchronization may treat severe heart failure (HF) with pharmacological optimization, left branch block, and an ejection fraction<35%. However, 30–40% of patients fail therapy. HBP could replace biventricular pacing (BiV). We compared the effectiveness of HBP versus BiV in HF patients.Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies on QRS, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and 6-minute walk test.Results Six publications included 774 patients (mean [± standard deviation] age: 66.9 [14.0] years; 484 (62.5%) were males; 408 [52.71%] underwent HBP; the mean follow-up was 6–12 months. The HBP group had a higher QRS reduction in the meta-analysis (median: −17.54 [−20.46, −14.62]; I2 = 89%). LVEF showed a median of 8.48 (7.55, 9.41) and I2 of 98%, with a higher mean in HBP. The LVESV median was −18.89 (−30.03, −7.75) and I2 was 0%, and the HBP group had a lower mean. HBP had a lower NYHA functional class (median= −0.20 [−0.28, −0.12]).Conclusion After implantation, HBP demonstrated bigger QRS shortening, increased LVEF, lower LVES volume, and lower NYHA class than BiV pacing.