Traditional dual-chamber right ventricular pacing versus conduction system pacing in the US medicare population

Abstract Introduction Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative therapy to traditional right ventricular (RV) pacing. However, the majority of CSP studies reflect small cohorts or single-center experience. Purpose This analysis aimed to compare CSP to dual chamber (DC) RV pacing in a large, population-based cohort utilizing data from the Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) study. Methods Medicare administrative claims data were used to identify patients implanted with a DC RV pacemaker. Lead placement data from Medtronic’s device registration system was used to identify patients with treated with CSP (N=6,197) using a 3830 catheter-delivered lead or DC RV (non-3830 lead, non-CSP placement) (N=16,989) at the same centers. CSP patients were stratified into left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) (N=4,738) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) (N=1,459). Incident heart failure hospitalizations (iHFH), all-cause mortality, complication rates and reinterventions at 6 months were analyzed. Results CSP (LBBAP and HBP) patients with a 3830 catheter-delivered lead experienced significantly lower rates of iHFH (HR: 0.70, P=0.02) and all-cause mortality at 6 months compared with DC RV patients (HR: 0.66, P<.0001) (figure). There was no difference in complications (HR: 0.89, P=0.06) or need for reintervention (HR: 0.83, P=0.08) with LBBAP compared to DC RV, though HBP patients experienced significantly higher rates of complications (HR: 1.41, P=0.001) compared to LBBAP. Conclusion Patients treated with CSP with a 3830 catheter-delivered lead experienced significant all-cause mortality and HFH benefits compared to DC RV pacing. LBBAP had lower complications compared to HBP. These real-world results in a large cohort of Medicare patients align with findings in small clinical studies demonstrating the benefits of LBBAP. Future research will focus on understanding patient selection for CSP.Figure