Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure Requiring Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Biventricular pacing (BVP) is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) who require cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that appears to ensure better electrical and mechanical synchrony in these patients. Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the existing evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of LBBAP-CRT compared with BVP-CRT. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP-CRT with BVP-CRT. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with participants that had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and (i) symptomatic HF or (ii) expected ventricular pacing >40%. Random and fixed effects models pairwise meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool (ROB 2.0) and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: Eleven studies (10 observational studies and 1 RCT) with 3141 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with BVP-CRT, LBBAP-CRT was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.87; p = 0.001), lower risk of HFH (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.71; p < 0.00001) and more improvement in NYHA class (weighed mean difference (WMD): –0.36, 95% CI: –0.59 to –0.13; p < 0.00001) compared with patients who received BVP-CRT. Conclusions: Compared with BVP-CRT, receipt of LBBAP-CRT in patients with HF is associated with a lower risk of mortality, and HFH and greater improvement in NHYA class.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".