Meta-Analysis Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus His Bundle Pacing - 31/12/21
Résumé |
Although His bundle pacing (HBP) can provide a physiologic ventricular activation pattern, it has disadvantages such as the difficulty of lead implantation, reduced R wave amplitudes, and high and unstable pacing thresholds. Recent studies have demonstrated that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) might overcome these deficiencies. A total of 7 nonrandomized controlled studies including 786 patients (n = 442 receiving LBBaP and n = 344 receiving HBP) with bradyarrhythmia were evaluated. Compared with HBP, LBBaP appeared to result in increased R wave amplitudes (at implant: MD 9.84 mV, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.61 to 12.06 mV; at follow-up: MD 7.62 mV, 95% CI 6.73 to 8.50 mV), lowered capture thresholds (at implant: MD −0.73 V, 95% CI −0.81 to −0.64 V; at follow-up: MD −0.71 V, 95% CI −0.92 to −0.50 V), shortened procedure times (MD −16.70 minutes, 95% CI −26.51 to −6.90 minutes) and fluoroscopic durations (MD −6.16 min, 95% CI −8.28 to −4.03 minutes), and increased success rates (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.74); all of these differences were significant. However, paced QRS durations, the lead impedance at implantation and follow-up, and incidence of lead-related complications such as lead dislodgement did not significantly differ between LBBaP and HBP. In conclusion, current evidence suggests that LBBaP is a potential alternative to HBP as a pacing modality with which to maintain an ideal physiologic pattern of ventricular activation through native His–Purkinje system stimulation.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 164
P. 64-72 - février 2022 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?