Meta-Analysis Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus His Bundle Pacing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongyu Yuan ◽  
Liting Cheng ◽  
Yongquan Wu
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing

scholarly journals Permanent His-bundle pacing: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

EP Europace ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1819-1826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Zanon ◽  
Kenneth A Ellenbogen ◽  
Gopi Dandamudi ◽  
Parikshit S Sharma ◽  
Weijian Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing

His BUNDLE Pacing – for whom? A comment on the meta-analysis after 20 years of experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (48) ◽  
pp. 28-30
Author(s):  
Dariusz Zając
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Years Of Experience ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Short Comment

Permanant His bundle pacing is method spreading over the years though almost twenty years experience does not bring answers to many important questions. There is a short comment to the paper by Zanon F. et al. Permanent His-bundle Pacing: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis. Europace 2018 presented. We discuss the efficacy and method’s performance refering to latest original papers.

scholarly journals A network meta-analysis and systematic review of change in QRS duration after left bundle branch pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, or right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemaker

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nithi Tokavanich ◽  
Narut Prasitlumkum ◽  
Wimwipa Mongkonsritragoon ◽  
Wisit Cheungpasitporn ◽  
Charat Thongprayoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Biventricular Pacing ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Qrs Duration

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.

scholarly journals A Network Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Left Bundle Branch Pacing, His Bundle Pacing, Biventricular Pacing or RV Pacing in Patients Requiring Permanent Pacemaker

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nithi Tokavanich ◽  
Narut Prasitlumkum ◽  
Wimwipa Mongkonsritragoon ◽  
Wisit Cheungpasitporn ◽  
Charat Thongprayoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Device ◽  
Biventricular Pacing ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Interval Change ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Qrs Duration ◽  
Cardiac Synchronization

Abstract Background: Cardiac dyssynchronization is the proposed mechanism for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy. The standard of treatment is biventricular pacing. Left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing are novel interventions that imitate the natural conductionof the heart with, theoretically, less interventricular dysynchrony. 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 device (CIED): left bundle branch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular pacing. Methods: 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 work through September 2020 from these databases was included in this analysis. A random-effects model network meta-analysis was used to analyze QRS duration changes (i.e., electrical cardiac synchronization) across different CIED implantations. Results: The mean study sample size, from 16 included studies, was 185 subjects. According to SUCRA analysis for the studies analyzed, 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 lead placement. Conclusion: Our network meta-analysis found that His bundle branch pacing devices have the greatest effect on QRS duration reduction after implantation, followed by left bundle branch pacing. Physiologic pacing interventions result in improved electrocardiography markers of cardiac synchronicity, narrower QRS duration, and might lower electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document