Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Feb;36(2):501-511.
doi: 10.1111/jce.16548. Epub 2025 Jan 7.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Irfan Ahsan  1 , Hussam Al Hennawi  2 , Angad Bedi  2 , Muhammad Khuzzaim Khan  3 , Nikhil Duseja  4 , Reginald T Ho  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Irfan Ahsan et al. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a new technique for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), potentially offering better cardiac function than right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Methods: We searched databases and registries for studies that compared LBBAP with RVP in patients with AVB and preserved LVEF. We extracted data on various outcomes and pooled the effect estimates using random-effects models.

Results: Our meta-analysis included 14 studies (10 observational and 4 RCTs) involving 3062 patients with AVB. The analysis revealed that the QRS duration was significantly shorter in the LBBAP group compared to the RVP group [MD = -35.56 ms; 95% CI: (-39.27, -31.85), p < 0.00001]. Patients in the LBBAP group also exhibited a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD = 5.48%; 95% CI: (4.07%, 6.89%), p < 0.00001], and a significant reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) compared to RVP [MD = -3.98 mm; 95% CI: (-5.88, -2.09 mm), p < 0.0001]. In terms of clinical outcomes, LBBAP was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) compared to RVP [OR = 0.26; 95% CI: (0.16, 0.44), p < 0.0001]. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the implant success rate, pacing impedance, or pacing threshold. The RVP group demonstrated a significantly higher R-wave amplitude increase than the LBBAP group [MD = 0.85 mV; 95% CI: (0.23, 1.46), p = .007]. Lastly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups [OR = 2.12; 95% CI: (0.29, 15.52), p = 0.46].

Conclusion: LBBAP outperforms RVP in several cardiac function indicators, suggesting it may be a superior pacing method for AVB patients with preserved LVEF. However, the small sample size in studies and the result in heterogeneity call for more research to validate these findings and assess LBBAP's long-term effects.

Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy; left bundle branch pacing; right ventricular pacing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot representing pacing QRS duration.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for LVEF at follow‐up.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot representing LVEDD.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot representing heart failure hospitalization.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot representing Implant success rate.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot representing pacing impedance.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot representing pacing threshold.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot representing R‐wave amplitude.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Forest plot representing risk of complications.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Aquilina O., “A Brief History of Cardiac Pacing,” Images in Paediatric Cardiology 8, no. 2 (2006): 17–81. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Glikson M., Nielsen J. C., Kronborg M. B., et al., “2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy,” European Heart Journal 42, no. 35 (2021): 3427–3520, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab364. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang Y., Zhu H., Hou X., et al., “Randomized Trial of Left Bundle Branch vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 80, no. 13 (2022): 1205–1216, 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.07.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen X., Ye Y., Wang Z., et al., “Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy via Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs. Optimized Biventricular Pacing With Adaptive Algorithm in Heart Failure With Left Bundle Branch Block: A Prospective, Multi‐Centre, Observational Study,” EP Europace 24, no. 5 (2022): 807–816, 10.1093/europace/euab249. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abdin A., Aktaa S., Vukadinović D., et al., “Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing as a Primary Strategy for Treating Bradyarrhythmia: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Clinical Research in Cardiology 111, no. 11 (2022): 1198–1209, 10.1007/s00392-021-01927-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources