Conduction System Pacing Versus Biventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Pacing: Meta-Analysis on Outcomes in Patients with Non-Left Bundle Branch Block

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: The role of biventricular pacing (BVP) is less well-established in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without left bundle branch block (LBBB). Conduction system pacing (CSP) has gained significant traction and may provide...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Xuanming Pung, Joe J. L. Chua, Khi Yung Fong, Yi Yi Chua, Germaine J. M. Loo, Jonathan W. S. Ong, Julian C. K. Tay, Hooi Khee Teo, Yue Wang, Colin Yeo, Eric T. S. Lim, Kah Leng Ho, Daniel T. T. Chong, Chi Keong Ching, Vern Hsen Tan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-07-01
Series:Medicina
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/61/7/1240
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:<i>Background and Objectives</i>: The role of biventricular pacing (BVP) is less well-established in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without left bundle branch block (LBBB). Conduction system pacing (CSP) has gained significant traction and may provide a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP in these patients. A few small studies studying this question have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to compare procedural and clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP in this group. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: An online literature search was systematically conducted to retrieve studies comparing CSP and BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Four studies with 461 patients were included. <i>Results</i>: Implant-derived paced QRS duration was significantly shorter (mean difference [MD] −19.7 ms, 95% confidence interval [CI] −36.2 to −3.3, <i>p</i> = 0.0355) with CSP. Echocardiographic response with significantly greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 5.6%, 95% CI 3.1 to 8.0, <i>p</i> = 0.0106) was also observed with CSP. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes such as all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.60, <i>p</i> = 0.133) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56, <i>p</i> = 0.129). <i>Conclusions</i>: This meta-analysis suggests that CSP may have better electrical synchrony and echocardiographic response compared to BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Further randomized studies with longer follow-up may be required to elucidate potential benefits in clinical outcomes.
ISSN:1010-660X
1648-9144