Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2026

Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing isolated left ventricular and biventricular pacing in
Yixiu Liang1, Wenzhi Pan, Yangang Su
1Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, China.
Insights
Left ventricular pacing (LVP) offers similar clinical benefits as biventricular pacing (BVP) for chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. However, biventricular pacing showed a trend towards better LV remodeling and function.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is crucial for chronic heart failure (CHF).
- Biventricular pacing (BVP) is standard, but left ventricular pacing (LVP) is an alternative.
- The comparative efficacy of LVP versus BVP in CHF requires further clarification.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness of LVP and BVP in patients with CHF through a meta-analysis.
- To evaluate the impact of LVP versus BVP on clinical status, LV function, and remodeling.
Main Methods:
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
- Included 574 patients with CHF indicated for CRT.
- Analyzed outcomes: 6-minute walk distance, peak oxygen consumption, quality of life, NYHA class, LV ejection fraction, and LV end-systolic volume.
Main Results:
- LVP demonstrated similar improvements in 6-minute walk distance, quality of life, peak oxygen consumption, and NYHA class compared to BVP.
- A trend suggested BVP superiority for improving LV ejection fraction and reducing LV end-systolic volume.
Conclusions:
- LVP provides comparable clinical status improvements to BVP in CHF patients.
- BVP may offer advantages in LV reverse remodeling and systolic function, warranting further investigation.
Abstract:
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been mostly achieved by biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), although it can also be provided by left ventricular pacing (LVP). The superiority of BVP over LVP remains uncertain. The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of LVP to BVP in patients with CHF. Outcomes analyzed included clinical status (6-minute walk distance, peak oxygen consumption, quality of life, New York Heart Association class), LV function (LV ejection fraction), and LV remodeling (LV end-systolic volume). Five trials fulfilled criteria for inclusion in analysis, which included 574 patients with CHF indicated for CRT. After a midterm follow-up, pooled analysis demonstrated that LVP resulted in similar improvements in 6-minute walk distance (weighted mean difference [WMD] 11.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.39 to 34.90, p = 0.35), quality of life (WMD 0.34, 95% CI -3.72 to 4.39, p = 0.87), peak oxygen consumption (WMD 1.00, 95% CI -0.84 to 2.85, p = 0.29), and New York Heart Association class (WMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.42, p = 0.54). There was a trend toward a superiority of BVP over LVP for LV ejection fraction (WMD 1.28, 95% CI -0.11 to 2.68, p = 0.07) and LV end-systolic volume (WMD -5.73, 95% CI -11.86 to 0.39, p = 0.07). In conclusion, LVP achieves similar improvement in clinical status as BVP in patients with CHF, whereas there was a trend toward superiority of BVP over LVP for LV reverse modeling and systolic function.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies

