Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Meta-analysis finds conduction system pacing reduces heart failure hospitalizations in HFmrEF

Meta-analysis finds conduction system pacing reduces heart failure hospitalizations in HFmrEF
Photo by Milad Fakurian / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider conduction system pacing over biventricular pacing in HFmrEF to reduce heart failure hospitalization, pending randomized trial confirmation.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the comparative efficacy of conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, versus biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, left ventricular ejection fraction 41%-49%). The analysis included 1867 patients from available studies.

Key findings showed that CSP was associated with a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.82) and an improved composite outcome of death or HFH (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94) compared with BiVP. All-cause mortality was similar between groups (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63-1.07). CSP also resulted in greater QRS narrowing (mean difference -14 ms). Device-related complications were numerically lower with CSP.

The authors note that these findings are based on observational and non-randomized data, and large randomized trials are warranted to confirm the results. The meta-analysis did not report on serious adverse events, discontinuations, or tolerability.

For clinicians, CSP, particularly left bundle branch pacing, appears superior to BiVP in reducing heart failure hospitalizations and enhancing electrical resynchronization in HFmrEF, but these findings require confirmation from large randomized trials before routine adoption.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 1,867
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of conduction system pacing (CSP) versus biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through August 2025. Studies enrolling patients with HFmrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 41%-49%) who underwent CSP (His-bundle pacing [HBP] or left bundle branch pacing [LBBP]) or BiVP were included. Outcomes assessed included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), composite endpoints (death + HFH), echocardiographic and electrical remodeling, functional status, and procedural/device complications. Risk of bias was evaluated, and evidence was graded using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 1867 patients) met inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed CSP reduced HFH (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.82) and improved the composite outcome of death or HFH (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94) compared with BiVP. Mortality was similar between groups (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63-1.07). CSP resulted in greater QRS narrowing (MD -14 ms) and consistent trends toward functional improvement. Device-related complications were numerically lower with CSP. CONCLUSION: CSP, particularly LBBP, appears superior to BiVP in reducing HFH and enhancing electrical resynchronization in HFmrEF. Large randomized trials are warranted to confirm these findings and establish CSP as a standard resynchronization strategy.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.