Cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing vs. optimized biventricular pacing with adaptive algorithm in heart failure with left bundle branch block: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP).

OBJECTIVES

The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP).

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT.

METHOD

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity.

RESULT

Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23  ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.

[New pacing strategies for heart failure]

In patients with a reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function (ejection fraction < 35%) and a left bundle branch block with a QRS duration > 130 ms, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can contribute to an improvement in the quality of life and a reduction in mortality. The resynchronization is mostly achieved by pacing via an epicardial LV lead in the coronary sinus; however, this approach is often limited by the patient's venous anatomy and an increase in the stimulation threshold over time. In addition, up to 30% of patients do not respond to the intervention. New treatment approaches involve direct stimulation of the conduction system by pacing of the bundle of His or left bundle branch. This enables a more physiological propagation of the stimulus. Pacing of the left bundle branch is achieved by advancing the lead into the right ventricle and screwing it deep into the interventricular septum. Due to the relatively large target area of the left bundle branch the success rate is very high (currently > 90%). Observational studies have shown a greater reduction in the QRS duration, a more pronounced improvement in systolic function and a lower hospitalization rate for heart failure associated with conduction system pacing compared to CRT using a coronary sinus lead. These findings have been confirmed in small randomized trials. Therefore, the use of left bundle branch pacing should be considered not only as a bail out in the case of failed resynchronization using coronary sinus lead placement but increasingly also as an initial pacing strategy. The results of the first large randomized trials are expected to be released in late 2024.

Evolution and prognosis of tricuspid and mitral regurgitation following cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Significant changes in tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and mitral regurgitation (MR) post-cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are increasingly recognized. However, uncertainty remains as to whether the risk of CIED-associated TR and MR differs with right ventricular pacing (RVP) via CIED with trans-tricuspid RV leads, compared with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), conduction system pacing (CSP), and leadless pacing (LP). The study aims to synthesize extant data on risk and prognosis of significant post-CIED TR and MR across pacing strategies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases published until 31 October 2023. Significant post-CIED TR and MR were defined as ≥ moderate. Fifty-seven TR studies (n = 13 723 patients) and 90 MR studies (n = 14 387 patients) were included. For all CIED, the risk of post-CIED TR increased [pooled odds ratio (OR) = 2.46 and 95% CI = 1.88-3.22], while the risk of post-CIED MR reduced (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.58-0.94) after 12 and 6 months of median follow-up, respectively. Right ventricular pacing via CIED with trans-tricuspid RV leads was associated with increased risk of post-CIED TR (OR = 4.54, 95% CI = 3.14-6.57) and post-CIED MR (OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.18-4.26). Binarily, CSP did not alter TR risk (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.13-1.02), but significantly reduced MR (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.62). Cardiac resynchronization therapy did not significantly change TR risk (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.55-2.17), but significantly reduced MR with prevalence pre-CRT of 43%, decreasing post-CRT to 22% (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.40-0.61). There was no significant association of LP with post-CIED TR (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.83-1.59) or MR (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.72-2.39). Cardiac implantable electronic device-associated TR was independently predictive of all-cause mortality [pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.40-1.90] after median of 53 months. Mitral regurgitation persisting post-CRT independently predicted all-cause mortality (HR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.57-2.55) after 38 months.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that, when possible, adoption of pacing strategies that avoid isolated trans-tricuspid RV leads may be beneficial in preventing incident or deteriorating atrioventricular valvular regurgitation and might reduce mortality.

Sex Differences in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Women respond more favorably to biventricular pacing (BIVP) than men. Sex differences in atrioventricular and interventricular conduction have been described in BIVP studies. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers advantages due to direct capture of the conduction system. We hypothesized that men could respond better to LBBAP than BIVP.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to describe the sex differences in response to LBBAP vs BIVP as the initial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective registry, we included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and left bundle branch block or a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% with an expected right ventricular pacing exceeding 40% undergoing initial CRT with LBBAP or BIVP. The composite primary outcome was heart failure-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome included all procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome when comparing men and women receiving LBBAP (P = 0.46), whereas the primary outcome was less frequent in women in the BIVP group than men treated with BIVP (P = 0.03). The primary outcome occurred less frequently in men undergoing LBBAP (29.9%) compared to those treated with BIVP (46.5%) (P = 0.004). In women, the incidence of the primary endpoint was 24.14% in the LBBAP group and 36.2% in the BIVP group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.23). Complication rates remained consistent across all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Men and women undergoing LBBAP for CRT had similar clinical outcomes. Men undergoing LBBAP showed a lower risk of heart failure-related hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared to men undergoing BIVP, whereas there was no difference between LBBAP and BIVP in women.

Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function

Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing (BVP) has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent times, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially, His bundle pacing, and more recently, left bundle branch area pacing, which are seen as promising alternatives to established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle compared with RVP and BVP. Of particular note is the capacity of conduction system pacing to yield a shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduce rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared with RVP. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than BVP in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared with that in RVP and BVP.

Heart failure in China: epidemiology and current management

The Annual Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China (2022) intricate landscape of cardiovascular health in China. In connection with the previous section, this sixth section of the report offers a comprehensive analysis of heart failure (HF) in China. HF is one of the most important cardiovascular disease in the 21st century. Its mortality is equivalent to that of cancer. It is an important public health problem that seriously affects the health of Chinese residents. In recent years, with the deepening of understanding, the change of treatment principles, the innovation of treatment methods and the update of treatment guidelines, the in-hospital mortality of HF patients has declined, and the long-term prognosis is also improving. However, there are still differences in the management level of HF among different hospitals in China. How to improve the standardized diagnosis and treatment level of HF in China remains an important challenge.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) nonresponders in the contemporary era: A state-of-the-art review

In the 2000s, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) became a revolutionary treatment for heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and wide QRS. However, about one-third of CRT recipients do not show a favorable response. This review of the current literature aims to better define the concept of CRT response/nonresponse. The diagnosis of CRT nonresponder should be viewed as a continuum, and it cannot rely solely on a single parameter. Moreover, baseline features of some patients might predict an unfavorable response. A strong collaboration between heart failure specialists and electrophysiologists is key to overcoming this challenge with multiple strategies. In the contemporary era, new pacing modalities, such as His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, represent a promising alternative to CRT. Observational studies have demonstrated their potential; however, several limitations should be addressed. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to prove their efficacy in HFrEF with electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing to Overcome Coronary Sinus Anatomy-Related Technical Problems Encountered during Implantation of Biventricular CRT-A Case Report

The results of clinical trials show that up to one-third of patients who are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not benefit from biventricular pacing. The reasons vary, including technical problems related to left ventricle pacing lead placement in the appropriate branch of the coronary sinus. Herein, we present a case report of a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, in whom a poor coronary sinus bed made implantation of classic biventricular CRT impossible, but in whom, alternatively, rescue-performed left bundle branch area pacing allowed effective electrical and mechanical cardiac resynchronization. The report confirms that left bundle branch area pacing may be a rational alternative in such cases.

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

Efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: Select site - cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is typically attempted with biventricular (BiV) pacing. One-third of patients are nonresponders. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been evaluated as an alternative means.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical response of permanent LBBAP as an alternative to BiV pacing.

METHODS

Of 479 consecutive patients referred with heart failure, 50 with BiV-CRT and 51 with LBBAP-CRT were included in this analysis after study exclusions. Quality-of-Life (QoL) assessments, echocardiographic measurements, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were obtained at baseline and at 6-monthly intervals.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups (all P > .05). Clinical outcomes such as left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume, QoL, and NYHA class were significantly improved for both pacing groups compared to baseline. The LBBAP-CRT group showed greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months (P = .001) and 12 months (P = .021), accompanied by greater reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (P = .007). QRS duration < 120 ms (baseline 160.82 ± 21.35 ms vs 161.08 ± 24.48 ms) was achieved in 30% in the BiV-CRT group vs 71% in the LBBAP-CRT group (P ≤ .001). Improvement in NYHA class (P = .031) and QoL index was greater (P = .014). Reduced heart failure admissions (P = .003) and health care utilization (P < .05) and improved lead performance (P < .001) were observed in the LBBAP-CRT group.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP-CRT is feasible and effective CRT. It results into a meaningful improvement in QoL and reduction in health care utilization. This can be offered as an alternative to BiV-CRT or potentially as first-line therapy.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Morbidity and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the morbidity and mortality associated with LBBAP versus BVP in patients undergoing CRT implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received CRT from two high-volume implantation centers were retrospectively recruited. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death.

RESULTS

A total of 491 patients receiving CRT (154 via LBBAP and 337 via BVP) were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. The primary endpoint was reached by 21 (13.6%) patients in the LBBAP group, as compared with 74 (22.0%) patients in the BVP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.14, P = 0.15]. There were 10 (6.5%) deaths in the LBBAP group, as compared with 31 (9.2%) in the BVP group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.86, P = 0.79). No significant difference was observed in the risk of either the primary or secondary endpoint between LBBAP and BVP after multivariate Cox regression (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23, P = 0.24, and HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.67, P = 0.51, respectively) or propensity score matching (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.29-1.65, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a comparable effect on morbidity and mortality relative to BVP in patients with indications for CRT.

Left bundle branch pacing and cardiac remodeling in HF patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: epigenetic pathways and clinical outcomes

Background

Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing could achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients who cannot be resynchronized via the placement of the left ventricle (LV) lead into the coronary sinus. LBB pacing could improve cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients with LBB block who are affected by type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Study hypothesis

LBB pacing could increase the number of CRT responders and lead to the best clinical outcomes in HF patients with T2DM, inducing cardiac remodeling and improving left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) via microRNA (miR) modulation.

Methods

In a multicenter observational study, we enrolled 334 HF patients with LBB block and an indication to receive LBB pacing for CRT. In these patients, we evaluated the CRT responder rate, clinical outcomes, and miR expression at 1 year of follow-up.

Results

At 1 year of follow-up, we had 223 responders (66.8%), 132 hospitalizations for HF (39.5%), 24 cardiac deaths (7.2%), and 37 all-cause deaths (11.1%), with a higher rate of HF hospitalizations (77 (69.4%) vs 55 (24.7%), p < 0.05), and cardiac deaths (13 (11.7% vs 11 (4.9%), p < 0.05) in non-responders vs responders. At the end of follow-up, we found the lowest expression of miR-26, miR-29, miR-30, miR-92, and miR-145 in LBB-pacing non-responders vs responders (p < 0.05), and a direct correlation between miR-30 (0.340, [0.833-1.915]; p 0.001), the 6-minute-walking test (6MWT; 0.168, [0.008-0.060]; p 0.011), angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI; 0.157, [0.183-4.877]; p 0.035), sodium-glucose-transporter-2 inhibitors (0.245, [2.242-7.283]; p 0.001), and LVEF improvements. C reactive protein (CRP) inversely correlated with LVEF improvement (-0.220, [-(0.066-0.263)]; p 0.001). ARNI (1.373, CI 95% [1.007-1.872], p 0.045), miR-30 (2.713, CI 95% [1.543-4.769], p 0.001), and 6MWT (1.288, CI 95% [1.084-1.998], p 0.001) were predictors of LBB pacing responders at 1 year of follow-up.

Conclusion

LBB-pacing responders evidenced miR modulation, which was linked to significant improvement of the cardiac pump. Specifically, miR-30 was linked to cardiac pump improvement and predicted responders at 1 year of follow-up in patients with T2DM.

Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature

Implantable cardiac devices are a vital treatment option in the management of tachy/brady-arrhythmias and heart failure with conduction disease. In the recent years, these devices have become increasingly sophisticated, with high implantation success rates and longevity. However, these devices are not without risks and complications, which need to be carefully considered before implantation. In an era of rapidly evolving cardiac device therapies, this review article will provide an update on the literature and outline some of the emerging technologies that aim to maximise the efficiency of implantable devices and reduce complications. We discuss novel pacing techniques, including alternative pacing sites in anti-bradycardia and biventricular pacing, as well as the latest evidence surrounding leadless device technologies and patient selection for implantable device therapies.

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing (BVP). This study assessed ventricular activation patterns and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP and compared this to BVP.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients underwent LBBP or BVP for CRT. Ventricular activation mapping was obtained by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG). Functional and echocardiographic outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality after one year from implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization vs BVP (QRS width: 170 ± 16 ms to 128 ± 20 ms vs 174 ± 15 to 144 ± 17 ms, p = 0.002 (LBBP vs BVP); e-DYS 81 ± 17 ms to 0 ± 32 ms vs 77 ± 18 to 16 ± 29 ms, p = 0.016 (LBBP vs BVP)). Improvement in LVEF (from 28 ± 8 to 42 ± 10 percent vs 28 ± 9 to 36 ± 12 percent, LBBP vs BVP, p = 0.078) was similar. Improvement in NYHA function class (from 2.4 to 1.5 and from 2.3 to 1.5 (LBBP vs BVP)), hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging is an appropriate way to gain a better insight into activation patterns of LBBP and BVP. LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization (e-DYS and QRS duration) with comparable improvement in LVEF, NYHA functional class, hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality at one year of follow up.

Non-Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure-From Physical Activity to Electrical Therapies: A Literature Review

Heart failure (HF) represents a significant global health challenge that is still responsible for increasing morbidity and mortality despite advancements in pharmacological treatments. This review investigates the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of HF, examining lifestyle measures, physical activity, and the role of some electrical therapies such as catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). Structured exercise training is a cornerstone in this field, demonstrating terrific improvements in functional status, quality of life, and mortality risk reduction, particularly in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, premature ventricular beats, and ventricular tachycardia aids in improving left ventricular function by reducing arrhythmic burden. CRT remains a key intervention for selected HF patients, helping achieve left ventricular reverse remodeling and improving symptoms. Additionally, the emerging therapy of CCM provides a novel opportunity for patients who do not meet CRT criteria or are non-responders. Integrating non-pharmacological interventions such as digital health alongside specific medications is key for optimizing outcomes in HF management. It is imperative to tailor approaches to individual patients in this diverse patient population to maximize benefits. Further research is warranted to improve treatment strategies and enhance patient outcomes in HF management.

Association between QRS shortening and mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy: Results from the DANISH study

BACKGROUND

Changes in QRS duration (∆QRS) are often used in the clinical setting to evaluate the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), although an association between ∆QRS and outcomes is not firmly established. We aimed to assess the association between mortality and ∆QRS after CRT in patients from the DANISH (Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Non-Ischemic Systolic Heart Failure on Mortality) study.

METHODS

We included all patients from DANISH who received a CRT device and had available QRS duration data before and after implantation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations between ∆QRS (post-CRT QRS minus pre-CRT QRS) and mortality.

RESULTS

Complete data were available in 572 patients. Median baseline QRS duration was 160 ms (IQR [146;180]). Post-CRT QRS was recorded a median of 48 days (IQR [33;86]) after implantation, and the median ∆QRS was -14 ms (IQR [-38;-3]). During a median follow-up of 4.1 years (IQR [2.5;5.8]), 106 patients died. In crude Cox regression, all-cause mortality was reduced by 6% per 10 ms shortening of QRS (HR 0.94; CI: 0.88-1.00, p = 0.04). The effect did not remain significant after multivariable adjustment (HR 1.01, CI: 0.93-1.10, p = 0.77). Further, no association was found between ∆QRS and improvement of New York Heart Association functional class at 6 months (OR 1.03, CI: 0.96-1.10, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, reduction of QRS duration after CRT was not associated with changes in mortality during long-term follow-up.

Early effects of left bundle branch area pacing on ventricular activation by speckle tracking echocardiography

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging cardiac pacing modality that preserves fast electrical activation of the ventricles and provides very good electrical measures. Little is known on mechanical ventricular activation during this pacing modality.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients receiving LBBAP. Electrocardiographic and electrical parameters were evaluated at implantation, < 24 h and 3 months. Transthoracic echocardiography with strain analysis was performed at baseline and after 3 months, when ventricular mechanical activation and synchrony were analyzed by time-to-peak standard deviation (TPSD) of strain curves for both ventricles. Intraventricular left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony was investigated by LV TPSD and interventricular dyssynchrony by left ventricle-right ventricle TPSD (LV-RV TPSD).

RESULTS

We screened 58 patients with permanent pacing indication who attempted LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in 56 patients (97%). Strain data were available in 50 patients. QRS duration was 124.1 ± 30.7 ms at baseline, while paced QRS duration was 107.7 ± 13.6 ms (p < 0.001). At 3 months after LBBAP, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 52.9 ± 10.6% at baseline to 56.9 ± 8.4% (p = 0.004) and both intraventricular LV dyssynchrony and interventricular dyssynchrony significantly improved (LV TPSD reduction from 38.2 (13.6-53.9) to 15.1 (8.3-31.5), p < 0.001; LV-RV TPSD from 27.9 (10.2-41.5) to 13.9 (4.3-28.7), p = 0.001). Ameliorations with LBBAP were consistent in all subgroups, irrespective of baseline QRS duration, types of intraventricular conduction abnormalities, and LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Echocardiographic strain analysis shows that LBBAP determines a fast and synchronous biventricular contraction with a stereotype mechanical activation, regardless of baseline QRS duration, pattern, and LV function.

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

The outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up.

Results

A total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. A total of 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (interquartile range 208, 508) days. There was significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (from 35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, P < .001 in the LBBP group; from 33.1 ± 7.5% to 41.8 ± 10.8%, P < .001 in the LVSP group) but not in the DSP group. A unipolar paced right bundle branch block morphology during the procedure in lead V1 was associated with higher odds of CRT response. There was no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths between the LBBP and LVSP groups. The rate of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths were increased in the DSP group compared with the LBBP group (hazard ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.14-22.78, P = .033; and hazard ratio 7.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38-44.32, P = .020, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared with LBBP.

Evolving Concepts in Cardiac Physiologic Pacing in the Era of Conduction System Pacing

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) has become a well-established therapy for patients with cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) in the presence of a left bundle branch block. In addition, CPP can be highly beneficial in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and patients with existing cardiomyopathy expected to have a right ventricular pacing burden of >40%. The benefits of CPP with traditional biventricular pacing are only realized if adequate resynchronization can be achieved. However, left ventricular lead implantation can be limited by individual anatomic variation within the coronary venous system and can be adversely affected by underlying abnormal myocardial substrate (i.e., scar tissue), especially if located within the basal lateral wall. In the last 7 years the investigation of conduction system pacing (CSP) and its potential salutary benefits are being realized and have led to a rapid evolution in the field of cardiac resynchronization pacing. However, supportive evidence for CSP for patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization remains limited compared with data available for biventricular cardiac resynchronization, mostly derived from leading CSP investigative centers. In this review, we perform an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available literature on CPP.

Left bundle branch pacing vs biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel pacing modality of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) that achieves more physiologic native ventricular activation than biventricular pacing (BiVP).

AIM

To explore the validity of electromechanical resynchronization, clinical and echocardiographic response of LBBP-CRT.

METHODS

Systematic review and Meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the standard guidelines as mentioned in detail in the methodology section.

RESULTS

In our analysis, the success rate of LBBP-CRT was determined to be 91.1%. LBBP-CRT significantly shortened QRS duration, with significant improvement in echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left ventricular end-systolic diameter in comparison with BiVP-CRT.

CONCLUSION

A significant reduction in New York Heart Association class and B-type natriuretic peptide levels was also observed in the LBBP-CRT group vs BiVP-CRT group. Lastly, the LBBP-CRT cohort had a reduced pacing threshold at follow-up as compared to BiVP-CRT.

Outcomes of Upgrading to LBBP in CRT Nonresponders: A Prospective, Multicenter, Nonrandomized, Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) nonresponders account for nearly 30% of CRT candidates. Left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an alternative to CRT.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and outcomes of upgrading to LBBP in CRT nonresponders, using propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

CRT nonresponders were defined as those with an implantable CRT-pacemaker or CRT-defibrillator for more than 12 months who remained nonresponsive (a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume of <15% or a left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] absolute increase of <5%) after optimal medical therapy and device optimization compared with baseline. In total, 145 CRT nonresponders were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups: upgraded to LBBP (n = 48), and continuing biventricular pacing (BVP) (control; n = 97). PSM was performed at a 1:1 ratio, and clinical evaluation and echocardiographic assessments were compared at baseline and follow-up in paired cohorts. The primary composite endpoint for clinical outcomes (heart failure-related rehospitalization events, all-cause death, or heart transplantation) was analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful upgrading to LBBP was achieved in 48/49 patients (97.96%), with a significant decrease in QRS duration (P < 0.001). In the paired LBBP group, LVEF significantly increased (baseline: 29.75% ± 7.79%; 6 months: 37.78% ± 9.25% [P < 0.001]; 12 months: 38.84% ± 12.13% [P < 0.001]) with 21/44 patients (47.73%) classified as echocardiographically responsive, whereas in the BVP control group, no significant improvement was observed (29.55% ± 6.74% vs 29.22% ± 8.10%; P = 0.840). In a multivariate logistic regression model, LV end-diastolic volume and baseline LBBB QRS morphology were independent predictors of echocardiographic response after upgrading to LBBP. At a median 24 months, the primary composite endpoint was significantly lower in the LBBP group (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14-0.72; log-rank P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading to LBBP is feasible and effective in achieving significant heart function improvement and better clinical outcomes in CRT nonresponders, making it a reasonable and promising pacing strategy. (LBBP in CRT Non-Response patients; ChiCTR1900028131).

Advances in cardiac pacing with leadless pacemakers and conduction system pacing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of cardiac pacing has undergone significant evolution with the introduction and adoption of conduction system pacing (CSP) and leadless pacemakers (LLPMs). These innovations provide benefits over conventional pacing methods including avoiding lead related complications and achieving more physiological cardiac activation. This review critically assesses the latest advancements in CSP and LLPMs, including their benefits, challenges, and potential for future growth.

RECENT FINDINGS

CSP, especially of the left bundle branch area, enhances ventricular depolarization and cardiac mechanics. Recent studies show CSP to be favorable over traditional pacing in various patient populations, with an increase in its global adoption. Nevertheless, challenges related to lead placement and long-term maintenance persist. Meanwhile, LLPMs have emerged in response to complications from conventional pacemaker leads. Two main types, Aveir and Micra, have demonstrated improved outcomes and adoption over time. The incorporation of new technologies allows LLPMs to cater to broader patient groups, and their integration with CSP techniques offers exciting potential.

SUMMARY

The advancements in CSP and LLPMs present a transformative shift in cardiac pacing, with evidence pointing towards enhanced clinical outcomes and reduced complications. Future innovations and research are likely to further elevate the clinical impact of these technologies, ensuring improved patient care for those with conduction system disorders.

Beyond biventricular pacing: Exploring the advantages of his-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing in heart failure-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compares His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP), a novel cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) technique that targets the intrinsic conduction system of the heart, with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP) in heart failure (HF) patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and dyssynchrony.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases up to May 2023 and identified 18 studies (five randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) involving 1291 patients. The outcome measures were QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) change, HF hospitalization, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improvement. We used a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (OR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also assessed the methodological quality of the studies.

RESULTS

The mean LVEF was 30.7% and the mean follow-up duration was 8.1 months. Among LBBP, HBP, and BiVP, HBP provided the shortest QRS duration [MD: -18.84 ms, 95% CI: -28.74 to -8.94; p = 0.0002], while LBBP showed the greatest improvement in LVEF [MD: 5.74, 95% CI: 2.74 to 7.46; p < 0.0001], LVEDD [MD: -5.55 mm, 95% CI: -7.51 to -3.59; p < 0.00001], and NYHA functional class [MD: -0.58, 95% CI: -0.80 to --0.35; p < 0.00001]. However, there was no significant difference in HF hospitalization between HPSP and BiVP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP as modality of HPSP demonstrated superior outcomes in achieving electrical ventricular synchrony and systolic function, as well as alleviating HF symptoms, compared to other pacing techniques.

Spontaneous Sinus Rhythm Restoration in Patients With Refractory, Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Conduction System Pacing and Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Ablate and pace (A&P) with conduction system pacing (CSP) improves outcomes in patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on spontaneous sinus rhythm restoration (SSRR) in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the incidence and the predictors of SSRR in a population of patients with permanent AF who underwent A&P with CSP. Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic permanent AF (of documented duration >6 months) and uncontrolled, drug-refractory high ventricular rate, who underwent A&P with CSP. The incidence and predictors of SSRR were prospectively assessed. A total of 107 patients (79.0 ± 9.1 years, 33.6% male, 74.8% with New York Heart Association class ≥III, 56.1% with ejection fraction <40%) were enrolled: 40 received His' bundle pacing, 67 left bundle branch area pacing. During a median follow-up of 12 months SSRR was observed in 14 patients (13.1%), occurring a median of 3 months after A&P (interquartile range 1 to 6; range 0 to 17). Multivariable analysis identified a duration of permanent AF <12 months (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.040) and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 (hazard ratio 14.8, p = 0.008) as independent predictors of SSRR. In patients with coexistence of both predictors the incidence of SSRR was of 41.4%. In a population of patients with symptomatic, permanent AF, treated with A&P with CSP, SSRR was observed in 13% of patients during follow-up. A duration of permanent AF <12 months and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 were independent predictors of this phenomenon.

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

Cardiac magnetic resonance-derived myocardial scar is associated with echocardiographic response and clinical prognosis of left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but the impact of myocardial substrate on its effect is poorly understood. This study aims to assess the association of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived scar burden and the response of CRT via LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with CRT indications who underwent CMR examination and successful LBBAP-CRT were retrospectively analysed. Cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement was used for scar assessment. Echocardiographic reverse remodelling and composite outcomes (defined as all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization) were evaluated. The echocardiographic response was defined as a ≥15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume. Among the 54 patients included, LBBAP-CRT resulted in a 74.1% response rate. The non-responders had higher global, septal, and lateral scar burden (all P < 0.001). Global, septal, and lateral scar percentage all predicted echocardiographic response [area under the curve (AUC): 0.857, 0.864, and 0.822; positive likelihood ratio (+LR): 9.859, 5.594, and 3.059; and negative likelihood ratio (-LR): 0.323, 0.233, and 0.175 respectively], which was superior to QRS morphology criteria (Strauss left bundle branch abnormality: AUC: 0.696, +LR 2.101, and -LR 0.389). After a median follow-up time of 20.3 (11.5-38.7) months, higher global, lateral and septal scar burdens were all predictive of the composite outcome (hazard ratios: 4.996, 7.019, and 4.741, respectively; P's < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lower scar burden was associated with higher response rate of LBBAP-CRT. The pre-procedure CMR scar evaluation provides further useful information to identify potential responders and clinical outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with right ventricular pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP) may have detrimental effects in ventricular function. Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) is a new pacing strategy that appears to have better results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of LBBAP vs RVP in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Pubmed databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP with RVP. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and complications. QRS duration, mechanical synchrony and LVEF changes were also assessed. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using random and fixed effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials with 4250 patients (2127 LBBAP) were included in the analysis. LBBAP was associated with lower risk for HFH (RR:0.33, CI 95%:0.21 to 0.50; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (RR:0.52 CI 95%:0.34 to 0.80; p = 0.003), and AF occurrence (RR:0.43 CI 95%:0.27 to 0.68; p < 0.001) than RVP. Lead related complications were not different between the two groups (p = 0.780). QRSd was shorter in the LBBAP group at follow-up (WMD: -32.20 msec, CI 95%: -40.70 to -23.71; p < 0.001) and LBBAP achieved better intraventricular mechanical synchrony than RVP (SMD: -1.77, CI 95%: -2.45 to -1.09; p < 0.001). LBBAP had similar pacing thresholds (p = 0.860) and higher R wave amplitudes (p = 0.009) than RVP.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP has better clinical outcomes, preserves ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony and has excellent pacing parameters, with no difference in complications compared to RVP.

Effectiveness of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) is ineffective in approximately one-third of patients. CRT with Conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT) may achieve greater synchronization. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CRT with His pacing (His-CRT) or left bundle branch pacing (LBB-CRT) in lieu of biventricular CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched until August 19, 2023, for original studies including patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who received His- or LBB-CRT, that reported either CSP-CRT success, LVEF, QRS duration (QRSd), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Effect measures were compared with frequentist network meta-analysis. Thirty-seven publications, including 20 comparative studies, were included. Success rates were 73.5% (95% CI: 61.2-83.0) for His-CRT and 91.5% (95% CI: 88.0-94.1) for LBB-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, greater improvements were observed for LVEF (mean difference [MD] for His-CRT +3.4%; 95% CI [1.0; 5.7], and LBB-CRT: +4.4%; [2.5; 6.2]), LV end-systolic volume (His-CRT:17.2mL [29.7; 4.8]; LBB-CRT:15.3mL [28.3; 2.2]), QRSd (His-CRT: -17.1ms [-25.0; -9.2]; LBB-CRT: -17.4ms [-23.2; -11.6]), and NYHA (Standardized MD [SMD]: His-CRT:0.4 [0.8; 0.1]; LBB-CRT:0.4 [-0.7; -0.2]). Pacing thresholds at baseline and follow-up were significantly lower with LBB-CRT versus both His-CRT and BiV-CRT. CSP-CRT was associated with reduced mortality (R = 0.75 [0.61-0.91]) and hospitalizations risk (RR = 0.63 [0.42-0.96]).

CONCLUSION

This study found that CSP-CRT is associated with greater improvements in QRSd, echocardiographic, and clinical response. LBB-CRT was associated with lower pacing thresholds. Future randomized trials are needed to determine CSP-CRT efficacy.

Left bundle branch area pacing vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may offer greater physiological benefits than traditional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, there are limited data comparing the efficacy of LBBAP vs BiVP in patients with systolic heart failure (HF).

Objective

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the feasibility and electromechanical and clinical outcomes of both LBBAP and BiVP.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies retrieved from various databases including PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) published up to May 22, 2023. The risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Results

We included 12 studies with a total of 3004 patients (LBBAP = 1242, BiVP = 1762). Pooled results showed that LBBAP resulted in a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.25, 0.54, P < .00001), echocardiographic response (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.29, P < .0001), improvement in New York Heart Association functional class (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23, P < .0001), QRS duration reduction (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.66, P < .00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.05, P = .02), fewer HF hospitalizations (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62, 0.85, P < .0001), and improved survival (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.92, P = .007). In addition, LBBAP was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.47, P < .0001) and lower pacing threshold at implantation (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.74, P < .00001) and at 6 months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.77, P < .0001) as compared with BiVP.

Conclusion

Compared with BiVP, LBBAP was associated with better electromechanical and clinical outcomes, including left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, echocardiographic response, New York Heart Association functional class, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in patients with systolic HF.

Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure Requiring Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Biventricular pacing (BVP) is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) who require cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that appears to ensure better electrical and mechanical synchrony in these patients. Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the existing evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of LBBAP-CRT compared with BVP-CRT.

Methods

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP-CRT with BVP-CRT. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with participants that had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and (i) symptomatic HF or (ii) expected ventricular pacing > 40%. Random and fixed effects models pairwise meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool (ROB 2.0) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of the studies.

Results

Eleven studies (10 observational studies and 1 RCT) with 3141 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with BVP-CRT, LBBAP-CRT was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.87; p = 0.001), lower risk of HFH (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.71; p < 0.00001) and more improvement in NYHA class (weighed mean difference (WMD): -0.36, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.13; p < 0.00001) compared with patients who received BVP-CRT.

Conclusions

Compared with BVP-CRT, receipt of LBBAP-CRT in patients with HF is associated with a lower risk of mortality, and HFH and greater improvement in NHYA class.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

Progress in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy and Optimisation

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) has become the cornerstone of heart failure (HF) treatment. Despite the obvious benefit from this therapy, an estimated 30% of CRT patients do not respond ("non-responders"). The cause of "non-response" is multi-factorial and includes suboptimal device settings. To optimise CRT settings, echocardiography has been considered the gold standard but has limitations: it is user dependent and consumes time and resources. CRT proprietary algorithms have been developed to perform device optimisation efficiently and with limited resources. In this review, we discuss CRT optimisation including the various adopted proprietary algorithms and conduction system pacing.

Conduction System Pacing versus Conventional Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Where Are We Heading?

Over the last few years, pacing of the conduction system (CSP) has emerged as the new standard pacing modality for bradycardia indications, allowing a more physiological ventricular activation compared to conventional right ventricular pacing. CSP has also emerged as an alternative modality to conventional biventricular pacing for the delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients. However, if the initial clinical data seem to support this new physiological-based approach to CRT, the lack of large randomized studies confirming these preliminary results prevents CSP from being used routinely in clinical practice. Furthermore, concerns are still present regarding the long-term performance of pacing leads when employed for CSP, as well as their extractability. In this review article, we provide the state-of-the-art of CSP as an alternative to biventricular pacing for CRT delivery in heart failure patients. In particular, we describe the physiological concepts supporting this approach and we discuss the future perspectives of CSP in this context according to the implant techniques (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing) and the clinical data published so far.

Electrical Synchrony Optimization for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients With Bradycardia and Heart Failure

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising physiological pacing modality. This study was designed to investigate the acute impact of the atrioventricular delay (AVD) on cardiac electrical characteristics and identify an optimal range of AVDs for LBBAP to achieve electrical atrioventricular and interventricular synchrony. Patients indicated for ventricular or biventricular pacing were studied during routine follow-ups at least 3 months after LBBAP implantation. Patients were excluded if they had a complete AV block or persistent atrial fibrillation. AVD was programed from 40 to 240 ms or until intrinsic conduction occurred. Optimal AVD was determined by the electrocardiography criteria, including QRS duration, reduced R-wave in lead V1, reduced notching or slurring in lateral leads, and more desirable precordial QRS transition. A total of 38 patients (age 68.7 ± 10.3 years; 16 male (42%); 18 dual-chamber pacemakers and 20 cardiac resynchronization therapy devices; average follow-up period 15.1 ± 10.2 months) were included. The fusion of LBBAP and intrinsic right ventricular conduction occurred in 21 patients with corresponding optimal AVD determined. A great proportion (∼85%) of the optimal AVDs ranged from 50% to 80% of the observed atrium-to-left bundle branch-sensing (A-LBBS) intervals. The linear correlation between the optimal AVD and corresponding A-LBBS interval (optimal AVD = 0.84 × [A-LBSs interval] - 36 ms) produced R = 0.86 and p <0.0001. In conclusion, AVD selection during LBBAP greatly impacted the ventricular electrical characteristics and the optimal AVD was linearly correlated with the corresponding A-LBBS interval.

Left bundle branch area pacing for heart failure patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBP) is a novel conduction system pacing method to achieve effective physiological pacing and an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We conduted this meta-analysis and systemic review to review current data comparing BVP and LBBP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database to November 2022. All studies that compared LBBP with BVP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT were included. Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference (MD) with inverse variance using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index, with I2  > 50% indicating significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten studies (9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial; 616 patients; 15 centers) published between 2020 and 2022 were included. We observed a shorter fluoroscopy time (MD: 9.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.49-14.87, I2  = 95%, p < .01, minutes) as well as a shorter procedural time (MD 33.68, 95% CI: 17.80-49.55, I2  = 73%, p < .01, minutes) during the implantation of LBBP CRT compared to conventional BVP CRT. LBBP was shown to have a greater reduction in QRS duration (MD 25.13, 95% CI: 20.06-30.20, I2  = 51%, p < .01, milliseconds), a greater left ventricular ejection fraction improvement (MD: 5.80, 95% CI: 4.81-6.78, I2  = 0%, p < .01, percentage), and a greater left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (MD: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.12-4.10, I2  = 18%, p = .04, millimeter). There was a greater improvement in New York Heart Association function class with LBBP (MD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.05-0.68, I2  = 61%, p = .02). LBBP was also associated with a lower risk of a composite of heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, I2  = 0%, p = .02) driven by reduced HFH (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, I2  = 0%, p = .01). However, all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (1.52% vs. 1.13%) and similar (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21-4.68, I2  = 0%, p = .87).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of primarily nonrandomized studies suggests that LBBP is associated with a greater improvement in left ventricular systolic function and a lower rate of HFH compared to BVP. There was uniformity of these findings in all of the included studies. However, it would be premature to conclude based solely on the current meta-analysis alone, given the limitations stated. Dedicated, well-designed, randomized controlled trials and observational studies are needed to elucidate better the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of LBBP CRT versus BIV CRT.

Electrical Resynchronization and Clinical Outcomes During Long-Term Follow-Up in Intraventricular Conduction Delay Patients Applied Left Bundle Branch Pacing-Optimized Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) has shown encouraging results for QRS duration reduction and heart function improvement. However, the feasibility and efficacy of LOT-CRT have not been well established in intraventricular conduction delay patients. This study aims to assess and compare the efficacy and clinical outcome of CRT based on left bundle branch pacing, combined with coronary sinus left ventricular pacing (LOT-CRT) with CRT via biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) in intraventricular conduction delay patients indicated for CRT.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with intraventricular conduction delay and CRT indications were assigned nonrandomized to LOT-CRT (n=30) or BiV-CRT (n=55). Addition of the left bundle branch pacing (or coronary venous) lead was at the discretion of the implanting physician guided by suboptimal paced QRS complex and on clinical grounds. Echocardiographic parameters and clinical characteristics were accessed at baseline and during 2-years' follow-up.

RESULTS

Success rate for LOT-CRT and BiV-CRT was 96.8% and 96.4%. LOT-CRT had greater reduction of QRS duration compared with BiV-CRT (42.7±17.4 ms versus 21.9±21.5 ms; P<0.001). Higher left ventricular ejection fraction was also achieved in LOT-CRT than BiV-CRT at 6-month (36.7±9.8% versus 30.5±6.4%; P<0.05), 12-month (34.8±7.6% versus 30.3±6.2%; P<0.05), 18-month (36.3±7.9% versus 28.1±6.6%; P<0.005), and 24-month follow-up (37±9.5% versus 30.5±7%; P<0.05). Adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure rehospitalization and mortality were lower in LOT-CRT group for 24 months follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.33; P=0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

LOT-CRT improves ventricular electrical synchrony and may provide greater clinical outcomes as compared with BiV-CRT in intraventricular conduction delay patients. These findings need further evaluation in future randomized controlled trials.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing as Initial Strategy for Cardiac Resynchronization

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVp).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between LBBAP and BiVp as an initial implant strategy for CRT.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter, observational, nonrandomized study, first-time CRT implant recipients with LBBAP or BiVp were included. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcomes were acute and long-term complications. Secondary outcomes included postprocedural New York Heart Association functional class and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients (median follow-up of 340 days [IQR: 206-477 days]) were included. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 24.2% in the LBBAP vs 42.4% in the BiVp (HR: 0.621 [95% CI: 0.415-0.93]; P = 0.021) group, driven by a reduction in HF-related hospitalizations (22.6% vs 39.5%; HR: 0.607 [95% CI: 0.397-0.927]; P = 0.021) without significant difference in all-cause mortality (5.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.19) or differences in long-term complications (LBBAP: 9.4% vs BiVp: 15.2%; P = 0.146). LBBAP resulted in shorter procedural (95 minutes [IQR: 65-120 minutes] vs 129 minutes [IQR: 103-162 minutes]; P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (12 minutes [IQR: 7.4-21.1 minutes] vs 21.7 minutes [IQR: 14.3-30 minutes]; P < 0.001), shorter QRS duration (123.7 ± 18 milliseconds vs 149.3 ± 29.1 milliseconds; P < 0.001), and higher postprocedural left ventricular ejection fraction (34.1% ± 12.5% vs 31.4% ± 10.8%; P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP as an initial CRT strategy resulted in a lower risk of HF-related hospitalizations compared to BiVp. A reduction in procedural and fluoroscopy times, shorter paced QRS duration, and improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction compared with BiVp were observed.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is observed to produce greater improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, whether these surrogate endpoints directly translate to improvements in hard clinical outcomes such as death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with CSP remains uncertain as studies reporting these outcomes are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the existing data to compare the clinical outcomes of CSP versus BiVP.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Embase and PubMed database was performed for studies comparing CSP and BiVP for patients indicated to receive a CRT device. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and HFH. Other secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in NYHA class, and increase in NYHA class ≥1. A random-effects model was chosen a priori to analyze the composite effects given the anticipated heterogeneity of included trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (4 randomized and 17 observational) were identified reporting either primary outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. In total 1960 patients were assigned to CSP and 2367 to BiVP. Median follow-up time was 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months). CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.83) and HFH (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63). Mean improvement in LVEF was also greater with CSP (mean difference 4.26, 95% CI: 3.19-5.33). Reduction in NYHA class was significantly greater with CSP (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.22) and the number of patients with an increase in NYHA class ≥1 was significantly greater with CSP (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.70-2.40).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HFH when compared to conventional BiVP for CRT. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify these observations.

Risk of Atrial Fibrillation Following Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing and Biventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a relatively novel physiological pacing strategy with better electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters than other pacing strategies. At present, no meta-analysis or systematic review has examined the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) after LBBP compared to other pacing strategies.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through September 18, 2022 to identify relevant studies reporting AF incidence rates after LBBP. The incidence of AF following LBBP and that associated with other pacing strategies were extracted and summarized for the meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as summary estimates.

Results

Five studies with 1144 participants were included. The pooled rate of AF was 3.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-8.0%) in the LBBP group and 15.5% (95% CI: 9.6%-22.4%) in the other pacing strategies (right ventricular pacing [RVP] and biventricular pacing [BVP]). Compared with other pacing strategies, LBBP was associated with a lower AF risk (OR, 0.33; 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, I 2 = 0.0%; p = 0.485). Similar results were observed for LBBP when compared with RVP (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, I 2 = 0.0%, p = 0.641) and BVP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.01-15.22, I 2 = 60.4%, p = 0.112).

Conclusions

Compared with BVP and RVP, LBBP was associated with a significantly lower risk of AF. However, further large-sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm that LBBP is superior to other pacing strategies in reducing AF risk.

His-Purkinje system pacing versus biventricular pacing in clinical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP), including his-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), imitates the natural conduction of the heart as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the feasibility and efficacy of HPSP were currently only evidenced by studies with a limited sample size, so this study aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

In order to compare the clinical outcomes associated with HPSP and BVP in patients for CRT, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science database were searched from inception to April 10, 2023. Clinical outcomes of interest including QRS duration (QRSd), left ventricular (LV) function and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, pacing threshold, echocardiographic and clinical response, hospitalization rate of HF and all-cause mortality were also extracted and summarized for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (ten observational studies and three randomized studies) involving 1,121 patients were finally included. The patients were followed up for 6-27 months. Compared with BVP, CRT patients treated by HPSP presented shorter QRSd [mean difference (MD): -26.23 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI): -34.54 to -17.92, P < 0.001, I² = 91%], greater LV functional improvement with increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD: 6.01, 95% CI: 4.81 to 7.22, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), decreased left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (MD: -2.91, 95% CI: -4.86 to -0.95, P = 0.004, I² = 35%), and more improved NYHA functional classification (MD: -0.45, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.23, P < 0.001, I² = 70%). In addition, HPSP was more likely to have higher echocardiographic [odds ratio (OR): 2.76, 95% CI: 1.74 to 4.39, P < 0.001, I² = 0%], clinical (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.80, P = 0.01, I² = 0%) and super clinical (OR: 3.17, 95% CI: 2.09 to 4.79, P < 0.001, I² = 0%) responses than BVP, and a lower hospitalization rate of HF (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.51, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), while presented no difference (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.06, P = 0.09, I² = 0%) in all-cause mortality compared with BVP. With threshold change taking into account, BVP was less stable than LBBaP (MD: -0.12 V, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.03, P = 0.01, I² = 57%), but had no difference with HBP (MD: 0.11 V, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.31, P = 0.28, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The present findings suggested that HPSP was associated with greater improvement of cardiac function in patients with indication for CRT and was a potential alternative to BVP to achieve physiological pacing through native his-purkinje system.

Reverse of left ventricular remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch area pacing: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently become a promising option for the near-natural restoration of electrical activation. However, the clinical relevance of therapeutic effects in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and dyssynchrony remains unknown.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until June 2022. Data from each study was combined using a random-effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, to calculate standard mean differences and pooled incidence ratio, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 772 HFrEF patients were analyzed from 15 observational studies per protocol. The success rate of LBBAP implantation was 94.8% (95% CI 89.9-99.6, I2 = 79.4%), which was strongly correlated with shortening QRS duration after LBBAP implantation, with a mean difference of -48.10 ms (95% CI -60.16 to -36.05, I2 = 96.7%). Over a period of 6-12 months of follow-up, pacing parameters were stable over time. There were significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) with mean difference of 16.38% (95% CI 13.13-19.63, I2 = 90.2%), -46.23 ml (95% CI -63.17 to -29.29, I2 = 86.82%), -7.21 mm (95% CI -9.71 to -4.71, I2 = 84.6%), and -44.52 ml (95% CI -64.40 to -24.64, I2 = 85.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP was associated with improvements in both cardiac function and electrical synchrony. The benefits of LBBAP in individuals with HFrEF and dyssynchrony should be further validated by randomized studies.

Left bundle branch area pacing in mildly reduced heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) strategy for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is controversial. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing modality and an alternative option to CRT. This analysis aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the impact of the LBBAP strategy in HFmrEF, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 35% and 50%. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP from inception to July 17, 2022. The outcomes of interest were QRS duration and LVEF at baseline and follow-up in mid-range heart failure. Data were extracted and summarized. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to synthesize the results. Out of 1065 articles, 8 met the inclusion criteria for 211 mid-range heart failure patients with an implant LBBAP across the 16 centers. The average implant success rate with lumenless pacing lead use was 91.3%, and 19 complications were reported among all 211 enrolled patients. During the average follow-up of 9.1 months, the average LVEF was 39.8% at baseline and 50.5% at follow-up (MD: 10.90%, 95% CI: 6.56-15.23, p < .01). Average QRS duration was 152.6 ms at baseline and 119.3 ms at follow-up (MD: -34.51 ms, 95% CI: -60.00 to -9.02, p < .01). LBBAP could significantly reduce QRS duration and improve systolic function in a patient with LVEF between 35% and 50%. Application of LBBAP as a CRT strategy for HFmrEF may be a viable option.

Conduction system pacing is superior to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: Insights from the pooled clinical studies

Background: The effects of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BVP) on heart function in patients with heart failure remain elusive. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane's Library and Web of science databases were searched up to 1 October 2022 for pertinent controlled studies. Random or fixed-effect model were used to synthesize the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to screen the potential confounding factors. Results: Fifteen studies including 1,347 patients were enrolled. Compared with BVP, CSP was significantly associated with shortened QRS duration [WMD -22.51 ms; p = 0.000], improved left ventricular ejection fraction [WMD 5.53%; p = 0.000], improved NYHA grade [WMD -0.42; p = 0.000], higher response rate and lower heart failure rehospitalization rate. CSP resulted in better clinical outcomes in higher male proportion group than lower one compared with BVP. No significant differences of clinical outcomes were observed between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) and his bundle pacing (HBP) except the pacing threshold. The pacing threshold of LBBaP was significantly lower than those in BVP and HBP. Conclusion: This study suggests that CSP might be superior to conventional BVP for HF patients. In a higher male proportion group, CSP may be associated with more benefits than BVP. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355991; Identifier: CRD42022355991.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?

The history of cardiac pacing dates back to the 1930s with externalized pacing and has evolved to incorporate transvenous, multi-lead, or even leadless devices. Annual implantation rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices have increased since the introduction of the implantable system, likely related to expanding indications, and increasing global life expectancy and aging demographics. Here, we summarize the relevant literature on cardiac pacing to demonstrate the enormous impact it has had within the field of cardiology. Further, we look forward to the future of cardiac pacing, including conduction system pacing and leadless pacing strategies.

Left bundle branch pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality in HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the gold standard for achieving CRT, but about 30%-40% of patients do not respond to BVP-CRT. Recent studies showed that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provided remarkable results in CRT. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to December 29, 2022 and focusing on LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients. The primary endpoint was HF hospitalization. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Risk Ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).

RESULTS

Ten studies enrolling 1063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to BVP-CRT, LBBP-CRT led to significant reduction in HF hospitalization [7.9% vs.14.5%; RR: 0.60 (95%CI: 0.39-0.93); p = .02], QRSd [MD: 30.26 ms (95%CI: 26.68-33.84); p < .00001] and pacing threshold [MD: -0.60 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.48); p < .00001] at follow up. Furthermore, LBBP-CRT improved LVEF [MD: 5.78% (95%CI: 4.78-6.77); p < .00001], the rate of responder [88.5% vs.72.5%; RR: 1.19 (95%CI: 1.07-1.32); p = .002] and super-responder [60.8% vs. 36.5%; RR: 1.56 (95%CI: 1.27-1.91); p < .0001] patients and the NYHA class [MD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.14); p < .00001] compared to BVP-CRT.

CONCLUSION

In HF patients, LBBP-CRT was superior to BVP-CRT in reducing HF hospitalization. Further significant benefits occurred within the LBBP-CRT group in terms of QRSd, LVEF, pacing thresholds, NYHA class and the rate of responder and super-responder patients.