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

Georgios Leventopoulos^1,*,†, Christoforos K. Travlos^1,†, Virginia Anagnostopoulou¹, Panagiotis Patrinos¹, Angeliki Papageorgiou¹, Angelos Perperis¹, Chris P. Gale^2,3,4, Konstantinos Α. Gatzoulis⁵, Periklis Davlouros¹

Show Less

¹ Department of Cardiology, General University Hospital of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece

² Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT Leeds, UK

³ Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT Leeds, UK

⁴ Department of Cardiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, LS1 3EX Leeds, UK

⁵ First Cardiology Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippokration General Hospital, 11527 Athens, Greece

^*Correspondence: levent2669@hotmail.com (Georgios Leventopoulos)
^†These authors contributed equally.

Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 24(11), 312; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2411312

Submitted: 24 June 2023 | Revised: 1 August 2023 | Accepted: 7 August 2023 | Published: 9 November 2023

This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Abstract

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) $\leq$ 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.