Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026
Conduction System Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Atrioventricular Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Daniyal Shaikh Muhammad, Meer Komail Khalid, Javaid Minahil, Sarwar Mahwish, Khalid Ayan, Hassaan Syed Muhammad, Burhan Muhammad, Gul Isbah, Khatoon Naveen Murad, Asifa Shireen, Ashraf Danish Ali, Rizvi Asjad, Hassan Ibrahim Nagmeldin, Fonarow Gregg C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is the standard therapy for atrioventricular (AV) block but may cause ventricular dyssynchrony with long-term use. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), as a physiologic alternative to RVP.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes were analyzed as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model in R (version 4.4.2).
RESULTS: Five RCTs enrolling 659 patients were included. CSP was associated with a significant improvement in LVEF compared with RVP (MD: 1.31%; 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.14; p < 0.01). While CSP resulted in a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (MD: -28.44 ms; 95% CI: -38.96 to -17.92; p < 0.01), the procedure time was longer with CSP (MD: 25.86 min; 95% CI: 23.09 to 28.63; p < 0.01). The risk of device and lead-related complications was comparable between cohorts (RR: 1.35; 95% CI, 0.28 to 6.63; p = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: Conduction system pacing (CSP) slightly improves LVEF and achieves a significantly narrower paced QRS compared with right ventricular pacing (RVP). Although associated with longer procedure times, CSP does not increase device- or lead-related complications. These findings suggest that CSP offers more physiological ventricular activation while maintaining comparable safety to conventional RVP.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number: CRD420251152303.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes were analyzed as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model in R (version 4.4.2).
RESULTS: Five RCTs enrolling 659 patients were included. CSP was associated with a significant improvement in LVEF compared with RVP (MD: 1.31%; 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.14; p < 0.01). While CSP resulted in a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (MD: -28.44 ms; 95% CI: -38.96 to -17.92; p < 0.01), the procedure time was longer with CSP (MD: 25.86 min; 95% CI: 23.09 to 28.63; p < 0.01). The risk of device and lead-related complications was comparable between cohorts (RR: 1.35; 95% CI, 0.28 to 6.63; p = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: Conduction system pacing (CSP) slightly improves LVEF and achieves a significantly narrower paced QRS compared with right ventricular pacing (RVP). Although associated with longer procedure times, CSP does not increase device- or lead-related complications. These findings suggest that CSP offers more physiological ventricular activation while maintaining comparable safety to conventional RVP.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number: CRD420251152303.