Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, but its benefits are uncertain. In this study, we aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of CSP vs BVP for cardiac resynchronization in patients with HFrEF. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing CSP to BVP for resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes. We included 7 randomized controlled trials with 408 patients, of whom 200 (49%) underwent CSP. Compared to BVP, CSP resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (MD -13.34 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI] -24.32 to -2.36, P = .02; I2 = 91%) and New York Heart Association functional class (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.37; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.05; P = .02; I2 = 41%), and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference [MD] 2.06%; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.97; P = .03; I2 = 0%). No statistical difference was noted for left ventricular end-systolic volume (SMD -0.51 mL; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.24; P = .18; I2 = 83%), lead capture threshold (MD -0.08 V; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.27; P = .66; I2 = 66%), and procedure time (MD 5.99 minutes; 95% CI -15.91 to 27.89; P = .59; I2 = 79%). These findings suggest that CSP may have electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and symptomatic benefits over BVP for patients with HFrEF requiring cardiac resynchronization.

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, but its benefits are still uncertain. In this study, we aim to evaluate clinical outcomes of CSP versus BVP for cardiac resynchronization in patients with HFrEF. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSP to BVP for resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes. We included 7 RCTs with 408 patients, of whom 200 (49%) underwent CSP. Compared to biventricular pacing, CSP resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (MD -13.34 ms; 95% CI -24.32 to -2.36, p=0.02; I2=91%) and NYHA functional class (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.05;p=0.02; I2=41%), and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD 2.06%; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.97; p=0.03; I2=0%). No statistical difference was noted for LVESV (SMD -0.51 mL; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.24; p=0.18; I2=83%), lead capture threshold (MD -0.08 V; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.27; p=0.66; I2=66%), and procedure time (MD 5.99 min; 95% CI -15.91 to 27.89; p=0.59; I2=79%). These findings suggest that CSP may have electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and symptomatic benefits over biventricular pacing for patients with HFrEF requiring cardiac resynchronization.

Remote ECG monitoring to reduce complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantations: the Redirect TAVI study.

AIMS: The optimal strategy of monitoring for conduction disturbances in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is uncertain. We evaluated a pre- and post-TAVI remote ambulatory cardiac monitoring (rACM) strategy for identification of conduction disturbances and to reduce unplanned pre-discharge post-TAVI permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: REdireCT TAVI (NCT0381820) was a prospective cohort study of patients referred for outpatient TAVI. Patients with prior PPMI were excluded. Remote ambulatory cardiac monitoring consisted of 2 weeks of continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring (Pocket-ECGTM) both before and after TAVI. Compliance to monitoring, frequency of notifications, unplanned PPMI post-TAVI, and length of hospitalization were measured. Between June 2018 and March 2020, in 192 undergoing TAVI (mean age: 81.8 years; female sex 46%; balloon-expandable valve 95.3%), compliance to rACM was 91.7% pre-TAVI (mean duration: 12.8 days), and 87.5% post-TAVI (mean duration: 12.9 days). There were 24 (12.5%) rACM notifications (13 pre-TAVI; 11 post-TAVI) resulting in 14 (7.3%) planned PPMI: seven pre-TAVI [due to sinus pauses n = 2 or atrio-ventricular block (AVB) n = 5] and seven post-TAVI [due to sinus pauses n = 1 or AVB n = 5 or ventricular tachycardia (VT) n = 1]. In addition, nine (4.7%) patients received pre-TAVI PPMI due to high-risk baseline ECG (right bundle branch block with hemi-block or prolonged PR interval). Unplanned PPMI post-TAVI during index hospitalization occurred in six (3.1%) patients due to AVB and in one patient readmitted with AVB. The median length of stay post-TAVI was 1 day. CONCLUSION: A strategy of routine rACM was feasible and frequently led to PPMI. Our approach of 2-week rACM both pre- and post-TAVI achieves both high patient compliance and sufficient surveillance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03810820.