Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). OBJECTIVES: The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT. METHOD: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity. RESULT: Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23 ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.

Ultrasound-Assisted Versus Standard Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Insights From National Inpatient Sample.

Background: Pulmonary embolism is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Catheter-directed therapies have emerged as a promising treatment for managing intermediate- and high-risk patients; however, data comparing standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (SCDT) and ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) are limited. This study aimed to investigate trends, outcomes, and predictors of mortality of both modalities from a nationally representative sample. Methods: This analysis used data from the National Inpatient Sample years 2016-2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A multivariable regression model was used to compare the outcomes. Results: Among 39,430 patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis, 26,710 (76.8%) received SCDT and 8060 (23.2%) received USAT. The utilization of SCDT and USAT increased during the study years except for 2020. In-hospital mortality was lower among patients who received USAT (2.7% vs 3.8%; P = .04) compared with patients who received SCDT in the unadjusted analysis. On multivariable regression analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of in-hospital mortality between USAT and SCDT (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.08; P = .13). There were no significant differences between SCDT and USAT groups in the rate of bleeding adverse events including intracranial hemorrhage (0.6% vs 0.4%; P = .47), and nonintracranial major bleeding (4.2% vs 4.1%; P = .72). Conclusions: Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis was associated with similar in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications compared with SCDT for acute pulmonary embolism. Further studies are warranted to confirm evaluate the long-term outcomes with both modalities.