Cardiology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria, 1, 98124, Messina, Italy.
Cardiology Unit, "Card. G. Panico" Hospital, Via S. Pio X, 73039, Tricase, Italy.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2024 Jun;67(4):719-729. doi: 10.1007/s10840-023-01626-5. Epub 2023 Aug 29.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.
We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.
Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.
This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.
左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)和希氏束起搏(HBP)是实现心脏传导系统起搏(CSP)的主要策略,但只有少数患者的观察性研究比较了这两种起搏策略,由于可行性和安全性结果的定义不同,有时结果并不明确。因此,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,旨在比较 LBBAP 与 HBP 的成功率和并发症。
我们系统地检索了从研究开始到 2023 年 3 月 22 日发表的电子数据库中的研究,并重点关注 LBBAP 与 HBP 的比较。研究终点为 CSP 成功率、器械相关并发症、CSP 导线相关并发症和非 CSP 导线相关并发症。
15 项观察性研究共纳入 2491 例患者符合纳入标准。LBBAP 显著提高了手术成功率[91.1% vs 80.9%;RR:1.15(95%CI:1.08-1.22);p<0.00001],并显著降低了并发症发生率[1.8% vs 5.2%;RR:0.48(95%CI:0.29-0.78);p=0.003]、导线相关并发症[1.1% vs 4.3%;RR:0.38(95%CI:0.21-0.72);p=0.003]和导线故障/失活[0.2% vs 3.9%;RR:0.16(95%CI:0.07-0.35);p<0.00001]。在 CSP 导线脱位和非 CSP 导线相关并发症方面,两种起搏方法无显著差异。
这项观察性研究的荟萃分析表明,与 HBP 相比,LBBAP 的成功率更高,并发症发生率更低。