A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing left bundle branch pacing, his bundle branch pacing, and right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a new technique for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), potentially offering better cardiac function than right ventricular pacing (RVP).

METHODS

We searched databases and registries for studies that compared LBBAP with RVP in patients with AVB and preserved LVEF. We extracted data on various outcomes and pooled the effect estimates using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 14 studies (10 observational and 4 RCTs) involving 3062 patients with AVB. The analysis revealed that the QRS duration was significantly shorter in the LBBAP group compared to the RVP group [MD = -35.56 ms; 95% CI: (-39.27, -31.85), p < 0.00001]. Patients in the LBBAP group also exhibited a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD = 5.48%; 95% CI: (4.07%, 6.89%), p < 0.00001], and a significant reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) compared to RVP [MD = -3.98 mm; 95% CI: (-5.88, -2.09 mm), p < 0.0001]. In terms of clinical outcomes, LBBAP was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) compared to RVP [OR = 0.26; 95% CI: (0.16, 0.44), p < 0.0001]. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the implant success rate, pacing impedance, or pacing threshold. The RVP group demonstrated a significantly higher R-wave amplitude increase than the LBBAP group [MD = 0.85 mV; 95% CI: (0.23, 1.46), p = .007]. Lastly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups [OR = 2.12; 95% CI: (0.29, 15.52), p = 0.46].

CONCLUSION

LBBAP outperforms RVP in several cardiac function indicators, suggesting it may be a superior pacing method for AVB patients with preserved LVEF. However, the small sample size in studies and the result in heterogeneity call for more research to validate these findings and assess LBBAP's long-term effects.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Utility of a guiding catheter for conduction system pacing: An early multicenter experience

Background

Conduction system pacing (CSP), either as His bundle pacing (HBP) or as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), may be superior to right ventricular apical or septal pacing.

Objective

The study sought to present acute results for a new guiding catheter (Biotronik Selectra 3D) designed for CSP implantations of a retractable screw-in lead (Biotronik Solia S).

Methods

The primary endpoint of the prospective, international nonrandomized BIO|MASTER.Selectra 3D study was freedom from catheter-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) within 1 week of lead implantation.

Results

Of 157 enrolled patients, CSP was achieved in 147 (93.6%) patients. No SADEs occurred within 7 days. LBBAP was achieved in 82 patients (45 as crossover from an HBP attempt) and HBP in 65 (44.2%) patients. In centers considering both HBP and LBBAP, the CSP implantation success approached 99%. Successful CSP implantations lasted on average ∼50 minutes (fluoroscopy ∼6 minutes). Most procedures (87.9%) needed only 1 catheter, even after switch from HBP to LBBAP. The catheter's handling was rated largely positive. In patients without bundle branch block, mean QRS duration increased from 106 ms (intrinsic) to 122 ms (CSP) (P = .001). In patients with bundle branch block, mean QRS duration decreased from 151 ms (intrinsic) to 137 ms (CSP) (P = .004).

Conclusion

The Selectra 3D catheter is a valuable tool for HBP and LBBAP implantations of the stylet-supported pacemaker leads. When implanters considered both HBP and LBBAP, the success rate was ∼99%. Flexibility to change between different approaches may be advisable in heterogeneous and challenging areas, such as CSP implantations.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Paradigm Shift in Physiological Pacing for Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function, A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) via His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Pacing (LBBP) offer a physiological approach to pacing by restoring normal ventricular activation. This meta-analysis compares the feasibility, outcomes, and success rates of HBP and LBBP in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular function. A systematic search identified studies comparing LBBP with HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function. Primary outcomes included QRS duration, success rates, pacing threshold, and improvement in R-wave amplitudes. Secondary outcomes were procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Random-effects models calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Among 382 screened articles, seven observational studies involving 1035 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 69.9 years, the mean LVEF was 59.3%, and the average follow-up duration was 8.7 months. LBBP showed higher R-wave amplitudes (MD 7.88, 95% CI 7.26 to 8.50, P < 0.0001) and lower pacing thresholds (MD -0.64, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.47, P < 0.0001) compared to HBP. LBBP had shorter procedure time (MD -17.81, 95% CI -30.44 to -5.18, P = 0.006) and reduced fluoroscopy time (MD -5.39, 95% CI -8.81 to -1.97, P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in QRS duration or success rates. LBBP offers advantages over HBP, including improved electrical activation, lower pacing thresholds, and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Success rates and QRS duration reductions were comparable between LBBP and HBP. These findings support LBBP as a feasible and effective alternative to HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function.

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing for patients with stable coronary artery disease

Aims

Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a prevalent comorbidity among patients requiring pacemaker implantation. This comorbidity may have an impact on the safety and prognosis of traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing modality. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and safety of LBBaP in patients with the stable CAD.

Methods

This study included 309 patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBaP from September 2017 to October 2021. We included 104 patients with stable CAD (CAD group) and 205 patients without CAD (non-CAD group). Additionally, 153 stable CAD patients underwent RVP, and 64 stable CAD patients underwent His-bundle pacing (HBP) were also enrolled in this study. The safety and prognosis of LBBaP was assessed by comparing pacing parameters, procedure-related complications, and clinical events.

Results

During a follow-up period of 17.4 ± 5.3 months, the safety assessment revealed that the overall rates of procedure-related complications were similar between the stable CAD group and the non-CAD group (7.7% vs. 3.9%). Likewise, similar rates of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (4.8% vs. 3.4%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD) and the primary composite outcome including death due to cardiovascular disease, HFH, or the necessity for upgrading to biventricular pacing (6.7% vs. 3.9%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD), were observed. In stable CAD patients, LBBaP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds and higher R wave amplitudes when compared to HBP. Additionally, LBBaP also had significantly lower occurrences of the primary composite outcome (6.7% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.003) and HFH (4.8% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.031) than RVP in stable CAD patients, particularly among patients with the higher ventricular pacing (VP) burden (>20% and >40%).

Conclusion

Compared with non-CAD patients, LBBaP was found to be attainable in stable CAD patients and exhibited comparable mid-term safety and prognosis. Furthermore, in the stable CAD population, LBBaP has demonstrated more stable pacing parameters than HBP, and better prognostic outcomes compared to RVP.

Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure Requiring Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Biventricular pacing (BVP) is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) who require cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that appears to ensure better electrical and mechanical synchrony in these patients. Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the existing evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of LBBAP-CRT compared with BVP-CRT.

Methods

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP-CRT with BVP-CRT. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with participants that had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and (i) symptomatic HF or (ii) expected ventricular pacing > 40%. Random and fixed effects models pairwise meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool (ROB 2.0) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of the studies.

Results

Eleven studies (10 observational studies and 1 RCT) with 3141 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with BVP-CRT, LBBAP-CRT was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.87; p = 0.001), lower risk of HFH (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.71; p < 0.00001) and more improvement in NYHA class (weighed mean difference (WMD): -0.36, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.13; p < 0.00001) compared with patients who received BVP-CRT.

Conclusions

Compared with BVP-CRT, receipt of LBBAP-CRT in patients with HF is associated with a lower risk of mortality, and HFH and greater improvement in NHYA class.

Rate and nature of complications of conduction system pacing compared with right ventricular pacing: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Comparative data on the risk of complications between CSP and RVP are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between CSP and RVP.

METHODS

A total of 1029 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation with CSP (including HBP and LBBAP) or RVP were enrolled. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 201 matched pairs. The rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up duration of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 19 patients: 7 in RVP (3.5%) and 12 in CSP (6.0%) (P = .240). On dividing the matched cohort into 3 groups with similar baseline characteristics according to pacing modality (RVP, n = 201; HBP, n = 128; LBBAP, n = 73), patients with HBP showed a significantly higher rate of device-related complications than did patients with RVP (8.6% vs 3.5%; P = .047) and patients with LBBAP (8.6% vs 1.3%; P = .034). Patients with LBBAP showed a rate of device-related complications similar to that of patients with RVP (1.3% vs 3.5%; P = .358). Most of the complications observed in patients with HBP (63.6%) were lead related.

CONCLUSION

Globally, CSP was associated with a risk of complications similar to that of RVP. Considering HBP and LBBAP separately, HBP showed a significantly higher risk of complications than did both RVP and LBBAP whereas LBBAP showed a risk of complications similar to that of RVP.