Improved outcomes of conduction system pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review
Julian Gin1, Chee Loong Chow2, Alex Voskoboinik3
1Department of Cardiology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Insights
Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), shows significant improvements in QRS duration and ejection fraction compared to biventricular pacing (BVP) for heart failure patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Conduction system pacing (CSP) offers potential alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
- Existing evidence for CSP, encompassing His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), is primarily from small observational studies.
Conclusions:
- Both LBBAP and HBP are feasible and effective alternatives to BVP for CRT in heart failure.
- Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of CSP.
Abstract:
Conduction system pacing (CSP)-His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)-are emerging alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure. However, evidence is largely limited to small and observational studies. We conducted a meta-analysis including a total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compare CSP (HBP and LBBAP) with BVP in patients with CRT indications. We assessed the mean differences in QRS duration (QRSd), pacing threshold, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class score. CSP resulted in a pooled mean QRSd improvement of -20.3 ms (95% confidence interval [CI] -26.1 to -14.5 ms; P < .05; I2= 87.1%) vs BVP. For LVEF, a weighted mean increase of 5.2% (95% CI 3.5%-6.9%; P < .05; I2 = 55.6) was observed after CSP vs BVP. The mean NYHA score was reduced by -0.40 (95% CI -0.6 to -0.2; P < .05; I2 = 61.7) after CSP vs BVP. A subgroup analysis of outcomes stratified by LBBAP and HBP demonstrated statistically significant weighted mean improvements of QRSd and LVEF with both CSP modalities compared with BVP. LBBAP resulted in NYHA improvement compared with BVP, without differences between CSP subgroups. LBBAP is associated with a significantly lowered mean pacing threshold of -0.51 V (95% CI -0.68 to -0.38 V) while HBP had increased the mean threshold (0.62 V; 95% CI -0.03 to 1.26 V) compared with BVP; however, this was associated with significant heterogeneity. Overall, both CSP techniques are feasible and effective CRT alternatives for heart failure. Further RCTs are needed to establish long-term efficacy and safety.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure
Conduction System of the Heart
The pacemaker cells are located in two primary nodes: the sinoatrial (SA) node and the atrioventricular (AV) node. The SA node pacemaker cells can autonomously depolarize, triggering an action potential that leads to the...
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents


