AUTHOR=Zhuo Wen , Zhong Xiaojie , Liu Hualong , Yu Jianhua , Chen Qi , Hu Jinzhu , Xiong Qinmei , Hong Kui 

TITLE=Pacing Characteristics of His Bundle Pacing vs. Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

VOLUME=9

YEAR=2022

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.849143

DOI=10.3389/fcvm.2022.849143

ISSN=2297-055X

ABSTRACT=<sec><title>Background</title><p>His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy, which aims to capture the His bundle-Purkinje system and synchronously activate the ventricles. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a newly discovered physiological pacing technique similar to HBP. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the pacing parameters and clinical results between HBP and LBBP.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>We systematically retrieved studies using the PubMed, Embase database, and Cochrane Library. Mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were used to measure the outcomes. A random-effect model was used when studies were of high heterogeneity.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>A total of seven studies containing 867 individuals were included. Compared with HBP, LBBP was associated with higher implant success rates (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05–1.18; <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup> = 60%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.0003), lower capture threshold at implantation (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.35–0.90, <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup> = 89%, <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001) and capture threshold at follow-up (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.34–1.18, <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup> = 93%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.0004), and larger sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at implantation (MD: 7.23, 95% CI: 5.29–9.16, <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001) and sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at follow-up (MD: 7.53, 95% CI: 6.85–8.22, <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). In LBBP recipients, greater QRS wave complex reduction was found in the paced QRS duration at follow-up compared with HBP recipients at follow-up (MD: 6.12, 95% CI: 1.23–11.01, <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.01). No statistical differences were found in procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, native left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF), LVEF improvement, native QRS duration, and QRS reduction from the native QRS duration vs. paced QRS duration at implantation.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Current evidence suggests that pacing characteristics are better in LBBP compared with HBP. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the clinical advantages of LBBP.</p></sec>