Key result
His bundle related pacing significantly preserved left ventricular ejection fraction by a mean difference of 3.9% compared to conventional right ventricular pacing.
Why the study?
Does His bundle related pacing improve cardiac function and electro-mechanics compared to conventional right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacing?
Meta-Analysis (n=325)
Does His bundle related pacing improve cardiac function and electro-mechanics compared to conventional right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacing?
Mean Difference: 3.9 (95% CI 1.6–6.1)
His bundle related pacing preserves left ventricular ejection fraction and shortens QRS duration compared to conventional right ventricular pacing, supporting its use as a physiological pacing strategy.
Supports His bundle pacing to preserve LVEF in permanent pacemaker patients; strengthens evidence for physiological pacing over conventional RV leads.
BACKGROUND: Long-term RVP could bring adverse problems to cardiac electro-mechanics and result in inter- and intra-ventricular asynchrony, impaired labor force, and aggravation of cardiac function. HBRP including direct His bundle pacing and para-His bundle pacing was regarded as a novel physiological pacing pattern to avoid devastating cardiac function. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of His bundle related pacing (HBRP) in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). METHODS: Published studies on comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, inter-ventricular asynchrony, and QRS duration, etc. between HBRP and RVP were collected and for meta-analysis. RESULTS: HBRP showed higher LVEF (WMD = 3.9%, 95% CI: 1.6% - 6.1%), lower NYHA class (WMD = -0.5, 95% CI: -0.7 - -0.3), WMD of LVESV = -0.1 ml, 95% CI: -3.0 - 2.8 ml), less inter-ventricular asynchrony (WMD = -13.2 ms, 95% CI: -16.4 - -10.0 ms), and shorter QRS duration for long-term (WMD = -36.9 ms, 95% CI: -40.0 - -33.8 ms), however, no significant difference of ventricular volume (WMDLVEDV = -2.4 ml, 95% CI: -5.0 - 0.2 ml; WMDLVESV = -0.1 ml, 95% CI: -3.0 - 2.8 ml) compared to RVP. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of HBRP was firstly verified by meta-analysis to date. Compared with RVP, HBRP markedly preserve LVEF, NYHA class, and QRS duration. However, it seemed to have less effect on ventricular volume.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Indications for permanent pacing (n=325). His bundle related pacing (HBRP) vs. Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 3.9%, 95% CI 1.6% - 6.1%). His bundle related pacing significantly preserved left ventricular ejection fraction by a mean difference of 3.9% compared to conventional right ventricular pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: