Why the study?
Does conduction-system pacing improve LVEF, heart-failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality compared to biventricular pacing in adults with HFrEF undergoing CRT?
Population
976 adults with HFrEF undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy, pooled from 9 randomized controlled trials
Comparison
Conduction-system pacing, including His-bundle… vs Conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP)
Design
Meta-analysis
Key result
Conduction-system pacing did not significantly improve LVEF (MD 1.90; 95% CI -1.05 to 4.86; p=0.176), heart-failure hospitalization, or mortality compared with biventricular pacing in HFrEF.
Authors
Loading...
CSP not superior to BiVP for LVEF or outcomes in HFrEF; reinforces BiVP as preferred resynchronization approach.
Meta-Analysis (n=976)
Does conduction-system pacing improve LVEF, heart-failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality compared to biventricular pacing in adults with HFrEF undergoing CRT?
Mean Difference: 1.9 (95% CI -1.05–4.86)
p-value: p=0.176
In patients with HFrEF undergoing CRT, conduction-system pacing is not consistently superior to biventricular pacing for clinical or echocardiographic outcomes, supporting biventricular pacing as the established default strategy.
Abomohsen et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=976). Conduction-system pacing (CSP) vs. Conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP) was evaluated on Change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.05 to 4.86, p=0.176). Conduction-system pacing did not significantly improve LVEF (MD 1.90; 95% CI -1.05 to 4.86; p=0.176), heart-failure hospitalization, or mortality compared with biventricular pacing in HFrEF.