His bundle pacing reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization by 32% (RR 0.68) compared to right ventricular pacing in patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia.
Meta-Analysis (n=1,817)
Does His bundle pacing or left bundle branch pacing improve clinical outcomes and pacing metrics compared to right ventricular pacing in patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia?
Conduction system pacing (HBP and LBBP) preserves physiological ventricular activation and LVEF compared to right ventricular pacing, with HBP reducing heart failure hospitalizations despite higher lead revision rates.
Effect estimate: RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.49-0.94)
p-value: p=0.02
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.
Abdin et al. (Thu,) conducted a meta-analysis in Bradyarrhythmia requiring de novo permanent pacemaker (n=1,817). His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs. Right ventricular pacing (RVP) was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94, p=0.02). His bundle pacing reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization by 32% (RR 0.68) compared to right ventricular pacing in patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: