Left bundle branch pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
biventricular pacing
conduction system pacing his-bundle pacing
heart failure hospitalization left bundle branch area pacing
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
revised:
23
03
2023
received:
08
02
2023
accepted:
30
03
2023
medline:
16
5
2023
pubmed:
11
4
2023
entrez:
10
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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. 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.
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
432-439Informations de copyright
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Cleland JGF, Erdmann E, Kappenberger L. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1539-1549.
Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1329-1338.
Anand IS, Carson P, Galle E, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduces the risk of hospitalizations in patients with advanced heart failure: results from the comparison of medical therapy, pacing and defibrillation in heart failure (COMPANION) trial. Circulation. 2009;119:969-977.
Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:3427-3520.
Ellenbogen KA, Huizar JF. Foreseeing super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:2374-2377.
Subzposh FA, Vijayaraman P. Long-term results of his bundle pacing. Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2018;10:537-542.
Huang W, Chen X, Su L, Wu S, Xia X, Vijayaraman P. A beginner's guide to permanent left bundle branch pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2019;16:1791-1796.
Wang Y, Zhu H, Hou X, et al. Randomized trial of left bundle branch vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80:1205-1216.
Chen X, Ye Y, Wang Z, et al. 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. EP Europace. 2022;24:807-816.
Li X, Qiu C, Xie R, et al. Left bundle branch area pacing delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy and comparison with biventricular pacing. ESC Heart Fail. 2020;7:1711-1722.
Guo J, Li L, Xiao G, et al. Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43:1460-1468.
Wang Y, Gu K, Qian Z, et al. The efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: a matched case-control study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31:2068-2077.
Hua J, Chen Y, Yu J, et al. Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block. Heart Vessels. 2022;37:1162-1174.
Rademakers LM, van den Broek JLPM, Bracke FA. Left bundle branch pacing as an alternative to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. Neth Heart J. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12471-022-01712-9. [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 28];Available from.
Liu W, Hu C, Wang Y, et al. Mechanical synchrony and myocardial work in heart failure patients with left bundle branch area pacing and comparison with biventricular pacing. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:727611.
Wu S, Su L, Vijayaraman P. Left bundle branch pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: nonrandomized on-treatment comparison with his bundle pacing and biventricular pacing. Can J Cardiol. 2021;37:319-328.
Liang Y, Xiao Z, Liu X, et al. Left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy on morbidity and mortality. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2022. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10557-022-07410-3. [Internet]. 2022. Available from.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Wells G, Shea B, O'Connel D, The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928-d5928.
Arnold AD, Shun-Shin MJ, Keene D, et al. His resynchronization versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:3112-3122.
Vinther M, Risum N, Svendsen JH, Møgelvang R, Philbert BT. A randomized trial of his pacing versus biventricular pacing in symptomatic hf patients with left bundle branch block (his-alternative). JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7:1422-1432.
Salden FCWM, Luermans JGLM, Westra SW, et al. Short-term hemodynamic and electrophysiological effects of cardiac resynchronization by left ventricular septal pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:347-359.
Huang W, Su L, Wu S. A novel pacing strategy with low and stable output: pacing the left bundle branch immediately beyond the conduction block. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33:1736.e1-1736.e3.
Chen X, Wei L, Bai J, et al. Procedure-related complications of left bundle branch pacing: a single-center experience. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:645947.
Padala SK, Ellenbogen KA. Left bundle branch pacing is the best approach to physiological pacing. Heart Rhythm O2. 2020;1:59-67.
Wang J, Liang Y, Wang W. Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization-repolarization reserve. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31:313-322.
Birnie D, Lemke B, Aonuma K, et al. Clinical outcomes with synchronized left ventricular pacing: analysis of the adaptive CRT trial. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10:1368-1374.
Brugada J, Delnoy PP, Brachmann J, et al. Contractility sensor-guided optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the RESPOND-CRT trial. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:730-738.
Trucco E, Tolosana JM, Arbelo E, et al. Improvement of reverse remodeling using electrocardiogram fusion-optimized intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a randomized study. JACC: Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:181-189.
Vijayaraman P, Zalavadia D, Haseeb A, et al. Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19:1263-1271.
Barsheshet A, Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, et al. Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1622-1630.
Upadhyay GA, Cherian T, Shatz DY, et al. Intracardiac delineation of septal conduction in left bundle-branch block patterns. Circulation. 2019;139:1876-1888.
Varma N, Boehmer J, Bhargava K, et al. Evaluation, management, and outcomes of patients poorly responsive to cardiac resynchronization device therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:2588-2603.
Dong Y-X, Powell BD, Asirvatham SJ, et al. Left ventricular lead position for cardiac resynchronization: a comprehensive cinegraphic, echocardiographic, clinical, and survival analysis. EP Europace. 2012;14:1139-1147.
Goetze S, Defaye P, Bauer A, et al. Phrenic nerve stimulation in CRT patients and benefits of electronic lead repositioning: the ERACE trial. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2013;38:1-9.
Ponnusamy SS, Murugan M, Ganesan V, Vijayaraman P. Predictors of procedural failure of left bundle branch pacing in scarred left ventricle. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2023;34:760-764.