Key result
His-Purkinje system pacing reduces mortality and rehospitalization ~28% vs. BiV pacing in AF and HF.
Why the study?
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of His-Purkinje system pacing in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation complicated by heart failure.
Does His-Purkinje system pacing improve cardiac function and reduce mortality and rehospitalization in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,445)
Does His-Purkinje system pacing improve cardiac function and reduce mortality and rehospitalization in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure?
Effect estimate: RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.57-0.91)
p-value: p=<0.01
His-Purkinje system pacing improves cardiac function, shortens QRS duration, and reduces all-cause mortality and rehospitalization compared to biventricular pacing in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure.
Supports preferring His-Purkinje over biventricular pacing to reduce mortality/rehospitalization in AF-HF; extends prior trial data via meta-analysis.
Aim To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the His-Purkinje system pacing (HPCSP) in the treatment of individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) complicated by heart failure (HF). Methods The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched through September 1, 2022. The literature was initially screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The baseline characteristics of the subjects, implantation success rate, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd), QRS duration, pacing threshold, and impedance were extracted and summarized; statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results In all, 22 articles were included, involving 1,445 patients. Compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP), HPCSP resulted in improved cardiac function, including increased ejection fraction (MD = 5.69, 95% CI: 0.78–10.60, P = 0.02) and decreased LVEDd (MD = −3.50, 95% CI: −7.05–0.05, P = 0.05). It was also correlated with shorter QRS duration (MD = −38.30, 95% CI: −60.71–−15.88, P < 0.01) and reduced all-cause mortality and rehospitalization events (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.57–0.91, P < 0.01) in patients. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) lowered the pacing threshold (MD = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25–0.69; P < 0.01), and there was no statistical difference in the rate of endpoint events when comparing these two physiologic pacing modalities (RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.87–2.80, P = 0.14). Conclusion The safety and efficacy of HPCSP in patients with AF and HF were verified in this meta-analysis. HPCSP can reverse cardiac remodeling and has great clinical application value. Relatively speaking, His-bundle pacing (HBP) can maintain better ventricular electro-mechanical synchronization, and the pacing parameters of LBBP are more stable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guan et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation and heart failure (n=1,445). His-Purkinje system pacing (HPCSP) vs. Biventricular pacing (BiVP) was evaluated on All-cause mortality and rehospitalization events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57-0.91, p=<0.01). His-Purkinje system pacing reduced all-cause mortality and rehospitalization events (RR 0.72) compared to biventricular pacing in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: