Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: his bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing

Introduction and objective: Cardiac resynchronization may treat severe heart failure (HF) with pharmacological optimization, left branch block, and an ejection fraction<35%. However, 30-40% of patients fail therapy. HBP could replace biventricular pacing (BiV). We compared the effectiveness of HBP versus BiV in HF patients.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies on QRS, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and 6-minute walk test.

Results: Six publications included 774 patients (mean [± standard deviation] age: 66.9 [14.0] years; 484 (62.5%) were males; 408 [52.71%] underwent HBP; the mean follow-up was 6-12 months. The HBP group had a higher QRS reduction in the meta-analysis (median: -17.54 [-20.46, -14.62]; I² = 89%). LVEF showed a median of 8.48 (7.55, 9.41) and I² of 98%, with a higher mean in HBP. The LVESV median was -18.89 (-30.03, -7.75) and I² was 0%, and the HBP group had a lower mean. HBP had a lower NYHA functional class (median= -0.20 [-0.28, -0.12]).

Conclusion: After implantation, HBP demonstrated bigger QRS shortening, increased LVEF, lower LVES volume, and lower NYHA class than BiV pacing.