Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing
Do you wish to request the book?
Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing
2024
Overview
Background
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.
Methods
We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.
Results
Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08–1.22);
p
< 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29–0.78);
p
= 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21–0.72);
p
= 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07–0.35);
p
< 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.
Conclusion
This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
