Abstract 4370123: Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBB-P) has emerged as a physiologically targeted alternative to biventricular pacing (BiV-P) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the impact of LBBAP versus BiV-P on clinical and procedural outcomes in patients undergoing CRT. Research Question: Does left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) provide superior clinical and procedural outcomes compared to biventricular pacing (BiV-P) in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy? Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted in February 2025 to identify studies comparing LBB-P and BiV-P in patients undergoing CRT. Eligible studies included randomized and observational designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure–related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included changes in QRS duration, Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Meta-analyses were performed using inverse-variance random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and sensitivity was evaluated with leave-one-out analysis. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Nineteen studies (18 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial) encompassing 5605 patients (LBB-P= 2428 and BiV-P= 3177) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to BiV-P, LBB-P was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59–0.79; p < 0.00001) and HF-related hospitalization (RR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42–0.62; p < 0.00001). LBB-P was also associated with a greater narrowing of QRS duration (mean difference: –24.60 ms, 95% CI: –29.49 to –19.70; p < 0.00001) and greater improvement in LVEF (mean difference: 4.71%, 95% CI: 3.80 to 5.61; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This updated meta-analysis demonstrates that LBB-P is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations compared to BiV-P in patients undergoing CRT. LBB-P also offers procedural advantages and greater improvements in electrical and functional cardiac parameters. Further large-scale randomized trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4370123
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4370123: Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Burhan Memon, Nomesh Kumar, Jamal S. Rana, Ahmed Ali Khan et al.
Circulation
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Abstract 4370123: Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Burhan Memon, Nomesh Kumar, Jamal S. Rana, Ahmed Ali Khan, Kumar Akash, Siddharth Shah, Nisha Kumari, Faujdar Ram, M Chadi Alraies
article en

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBB-P) has emerged as a physiologically targeted alternative to biventricular pacing (BiV-P) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the impact of LBBAP versus BiV-P on clinical and procedural outcomes in patients undergoing CRT. Research Question: Does left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) provide superior clinical and procedural outcomes compared to biventricular pacing (BiV-P) in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy? Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted in February 2025 to identify studies comparing LBB-P and BiV-P in patients undergoing CRT. Eligible studies included randomized and observational designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure–related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included changes in QRS duration, Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Meta-analyses were performed using inverse-variance random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and sensitivity was evaluated with leave-one-out analysis. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Nineteen studies (18 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial) encompassing 5605 patients (LBB-P= 2428 and BiV-P= 3177) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to BiV-P, LBB-P was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59–0.79; p < 0.00001) and HF-related hospitalization (RR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42–0.62; p < 0.00001). LBB-P was also associated with a greater narrowing of QRS duration (mean difference: –24.60 ms, 95% CI: –29.49 to –19.70; p < 0.00001) and greater improvement in LVEF (mean difference: 4.71%, 95% CI: 3.80 to 5.61; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This updated meta-analysis demonstrates that LBB-P is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations compared to BiV-P in patients undergoing CRT. LBB-P also offers procedural advantages and greater improvements in electrical and functional cardiac parameters. Further large-scale randomized trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (PK), Kaiser Permanente (US), Illinois College (US), Wayne State University (US), Detroit Medical Center (US), Foundation University Medical College (PK), OSF Saint Francis Medical Center (US), Dow University of Health Sciences (PK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.