Safety and efficacy of His-bundle pacing/left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Xinyi Peng ◽  
Yu Chen ◽  
Xiaofei Wang ◽  
Aizhen Hu ◽  
Xuexun Li
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nithi Tokavanich ◽  
Narut Prasitlumkum ◽  
Wimwipa Mongkonsritragoon ◽  
Wisit Cheungpasitporn ◽  
Charat Thongprayoon ◽  
...  

AbstractCardiac dyssynchrony is the proposed mechanism for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented by biventricular pacing. Left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing are novel interventions that imitate the natural conduction of the heart with, theoretically, less interventricular dyssynchrony. One of the surrogate markers of interventricular synchrony is QRS duration. Our study aimed to compare the change of QRS duration before and after implantation between types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): left bundle branch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular pacing. A literature search for studies that reported an interval change of QRS duration after CIED implantation was conducted utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant works from database inception through November 2020 were included in this analysis. A random-effects model, Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to analyze QRS duration changes (eg, electrical cardiac synchronization) across different CIED implantations. The mean study sample size, from 14 included studies, was 185 subjects. The search found 707 articles. After exclusions, 14 articles remained with 2,054 patients. The His bundle pacing intervention resulted in the most dramatic decline in QRS duration (mean difference, − 53 ms; 95% CI − 67, − 39), followed by left bundle branch pacing (mean difference, − 46 ms; 95% CI − 60, − 33), and biventricular pacing (mean difference, − 19 ms; 95% CI − 37, − 1.8), when compared to conventional right ventricle apical pacing. When compared between LBBP and HBP, showed no statistically significant wider QRS duration in LBBP with mean different 6.5 ms. (95% CI − 6.7, 21). Our network meta-analysis found that physiologic pacing has the greatest effect on QRS duration after implantation. Thus, HBP and LBBP showed no significant difference between QRS duration after implantation. Physiologic pacing interventions result in improved electrocardiography markers of cardiac synchrony, narrower QRS duration, and might lower electromechanical dyssynchrony.


Heart Rhythm ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parikshit S. Sharma ◽  
Gopi Dandamudi ◽  
Angela Naperkowski ◽  
Jess W. Oren ◽  
Randle H. Storm ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
pp. 843-849
Author(s):  
E. Occhetta ◽  
M. Bortnik ◽  
G. Francalacci ◽  
A. Magnani ◽  
C. PIccinino ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 264
Author(s):  
Jian Liang Tan ◽  
Justin Lee ◽  
Vittorio Terrigno ◽  
Benjamin Saracco ◽  
Shivam Saxena ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Amr Abdin ◽  
Suleman Aktaa ◽  
Davor Vukadinović ◽  
Elena Arbelo ◽  
Harran Burri ◽  
...  

Abstract 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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document