Conduction System Pacing Versus Biventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Pacing: Meta-Analysis on Outcomes in Patients
Xuanming Pung1, Joe J L Chua1, Khi Yung Fong2
1Department of Cardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore 169609, Singapore.
Insights
Conduction system pacing (CSP) shows improved electrical synchrony and echocardiographic response compared to biventricular pacing (BVP) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients without left bundle branch block. Clinical outcomes were similar between the two pacing methods.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Biventricular pacing (BVP) efficacy is less defined in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without left bundle branch block (LBBB).
- Conduction system pacing (CSP) offers a potentially more physiological alternative to BVP.
- Existing studies comparing CSP and BVP in this population have yielded conflicting results.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare procedural and clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP in HFrEF patients without LBBB.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of CSP versus BVP in improving electrical synchrony and cardiac function.
Main Methods:
- Systematic literature search for studies comparing CSP and BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB.
- Inclusion of four studies involving 461 patients.
- Meta-analysis of procedural and clinical outcomes.
Main Results:
- CSP resulted in a significantly shorter paced QRS duration (mean difference -19.7 ms).
- CSP demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference 5.6%).
- No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalizations.
Conclusions:
- CSP may offer superior electrical synchrony and echocardiographic response compared to BVP in HFrEF patients without LBBB.
- Further randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up are needed to confirm benefits in clinical outcomes.
Abstract:
Background and Objectives: The role of biventricular pacing (BVP) is less well-established in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without left bundle branch block (LBBB). Conduction system pacing (CSP) has gained significant traction and may provide a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP in these patients. A few small studies studying this question have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to compare procedural and clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP in this group. Materials and Methods: An online literature search was systematically conducted to retrieve studies comparing CSP and BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Four studies with 461 patients were included. Results: Implant-derived paced QRS duration was significantly shorter (mean difference [MD] -19.7 ms, 95% confidence interval [CI] -36.2 to -3.3, p = 0.0355) with CSP. Echocardiographic response with significantly greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 5.6%, 95% CI 3.1 to 8.0, p = 0.0106) was also observed with CSP. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes such as all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.60, p = 0.133) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56, p = 0.129). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that CSP may have better electrical synchrony and echocardiographic response compared to BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Further randomized studies with longer follow-up may be required to elucidate potential benefits in clinical outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
Dysrhythmias IV: Characteristics of Bradyarrhythmias
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 Drugs: β-Blockers
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care


