Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing as a primary pacing strategy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
His-bundle pacing
cardiac pacing
clinical outcomes
left bundle branch pacing
meta-analysis
systematic review
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:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
revised:
04
09
2023
received:
20
06
2023
accepted:
24
09
2023
medline:
27
11
2023
pubmed:
9
10
2023
entrez:
9
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Novel pacing technologies, such as His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), have emerged to maintain physiological ventricular activation. We investigated the outcomes of LBBP with HBP for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacing. Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing LBBaP with HBP until March 01, 2023 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included pacing metrics, QRS duration, lead revision, procedure parameters, all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Overall, 10 studies with 1596 patients were included. Implant success rate was higher in LBBaP compared with HBP (RR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.42, p = .002). LBBaP was associated with lower capture threshold at implantation (mean difference (MD) -0.62 V, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.51 V, p < .0001) and at follow-up (MD -0.74 V, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.53, p < .0001), shorter procedure duration (MD -14.66 min, 95% CI: -23.54 to -5.78, p = .001) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -4.2 min, 95% CI: -8.4 to -0.0, p = .05). Compared with HBP, LBBaP was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.77, p = .002) and HFH (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.00, p = .05). No statistical differences were found in lead revisions and QRS duration before and after pacing. This meta-analysis found that LBBaP was superior to HBP regarding pacing metrics and implant success rate as an initial pacing strategy, although absence of head-to-head randomized comparison warrants caution in interpretation of the results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Novel pacing technologies, such as His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), have emerged to maintain physiological ventricular activation. We investigated the outcomes of LBBP with HBP for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacing.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing LBBaP with HBP until March 01, 2023 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included pacing metrics, QRS duration, lead revision, procedure parameters, all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Overall, 10 studies with 1596 patients were included. Implant success rate was higher in LBBaP compared with HBP (RR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.42, p = .002). LBBaP was associated with lower capture threshold at implantation (mean difference (MD) -0.62 V, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.51 V, p < .0001) and at follow-up (MD -0.74 V, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.53, p < .0001), shorter procedure duration (MD -14.66 min, 95% CI: -23.54 to -5.78, p = .001) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -4.2 min, 95% CI: -8.4 to -0.0, p = .05). Compared with HBP, LBBaP was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.77, p = .002) and HFH (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.00, p = .05). No statistical differences were found in lead revisions and QRS duration before and after pacing.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis found that LBBaP was superior to HBP regarding pacing metrics and implant success rate as an initial pacing strategy, although absence of head-to-head randomized comparison warrants caution in interpretation of the results.
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1315-1324Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
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.
Aktaa S, Abdin A, Arbelo E, et al. European Society of Cardiology Quality Indicators for the care and outcomes of cardiac pacing: developed by the Working Group for Cardiac Pacing Quality Indicators in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Europace. 2022;24:165-172.
Abdin A, Yalin K, Zink MD, et al. Incidence and predictors of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy: a single-center experience. J Electrocardiol. 2019;57:31-34.
Abdin A, Aktaa S, Vukadinović D, et al. Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111:1198-1209.
Khurshid S, Epstein AE, Verdino RJ, et al. Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:1619-1625.
Vijayaraman P, Naperkowski A, Subzposh FA, et al. Permanent his-bundle pacing: long-term lead performance and clinical outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2018;15:696-702.
Fernandes GC, Knijnik L, Lopez J, et al. Network meta-analysis of His bundle, biventricular, or right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for advanced atrioventricular conduction disease with normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31:1482-1492.
Jastrzębski M, Kiełbasa G, Cano O, et al. Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:4161-4173.
Vijayaraman P, Cano O, Ponnusamy SS, Molina-Lerma M, Chan JYS, Padala SK, et al. Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with heart failure and right bundle branch block: results from International LBBAP Collaborative-Study Group. Heart Rhythm O2. 2022;3:358-367.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777-784.
Hou X, Qian Z, Wang Y, et al. Feasibility and cardiac synchrony of permanent left bundle branch pacing through the interventricular septum. Europace. 2019;21:1694-1702.
Qian Z, Qiu Y, Wang Y, et al. Lead performance and clinical outcomes of patients with permanent hispurkinje system pacing: a single-centre experience. Europace. 2020;22:ii45-53.
Hua W, Fan X, Li X, et al. Comparison of left bundle branch and His bundle pacing in bradycardia patients. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6:1291-1299.
Vijayaraman P, Cano O, Koruth JS, et al. His-Purkinje conduction system pacing following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: feasibility and safety. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6:649-657.
Wu S, Su L, Vijayaraman P, et al. 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.
Sheng X, Pan YW, Yu C, et al. Comparison of synchronization between left bundle branch and His bundle pacing in atrial fibrillation patients: an intra-patient-controlled study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;44:1523-1531.
Pillai A, Kolominsky J, Koneru JN, Kron J, Shepard RK, Kalahasty G, et al. Atrioventricular junction ablation in patients with conduction system pacing leads: a comparison of His-bundle vs. left bundle branch area pacing leads. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19:1116-1123.
Vijayaraman P, Rajakumar C, Naperkowski AM, Subzposh FA. Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2022;336:1234-1243.
Tan ES, Soh R, Boey E, et al. Comparison of pacing performance and clinical outcomes between left bundle branch and His bundle pacing. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2023. 10.1016/j.jacep.2022.12.022
O'Connor M, Shi R, Kramer DB, et al. Conduction system pacing learning curve: left bundle pacing compared to His bundle pacing. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2023;44:101171.
Burri H, Jastrzebski M, Cano Ó, et al. EHRA expert consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation. Europace. 2023;25:1237-1248.
Zhuo W, Zhong X, Liu H, et al. Pacing characteristics of His bundle pacing vs. left bundle branch pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:849143.
Kircanski B, Boveda S, Prinzen F, et al. Conduction system pacing in everyday clinical practice: EHRA physician survey. Europace. 2022:euac201.