Risk of Atrial Fibrillation Following Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing and Biventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

左束支区域起搏与右心室起搏和双心室起搏后房颤风险的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a relatively novel physiological pacing strategy with better electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters than other pacing strategies. At present, no meta-analysis or systematic review has examined the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) after LBBP compared to other pacing strategies. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through September 18, 2022 to identify relevant studies reporting AF incidence rates after LBBP. The incidence of AF following LBBP and that associated with other pacing strategies were extracted and summarized for the meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as summary estimates. RESULTS: Five studies with 1144 participants were included. The pooled rate of AF was 3.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-8.0%) in the LBBP group and 15.5% (95% CI: 9.6%-22.4%) in the other pacing strategies (right ventricular pacing [RVP] and biventricular pacing [BVP]). Compared with other pacing strategies, LBBP was associated with a lower AF risk (OR, 0.33; 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, I2 = 0.0%; p = 0.485). Similar results were observed for LBBP when compared with RVP (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.641) and BVP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.01-15.22, I2 = 60.4%, p = 0.112). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BVP and RVP, LBBP was associated with a significantly lower risk of AF. However, further large-sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm that LBBP is superior to other pacing strategies in reducing AF risk.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。