ABSTRACT
Biventricular pacing has revolutionised the treatment of heart failure in patients with sinus rhythm and left bundle branch block; however, left ventricular-lead placement is not always technically possible. Furthermore, biventricular pacing does not fully normalise ventricular activation and, therefore, the ventricular resynchronisation is imperfect. Right ventricular pacing for bradycardia may cause or worsen heart failure in some patients by causing dyssynchronous ventricular activation. His bundle pacing activates the ventricles via the native His-Purkinje system, resulting in true physiological pacing, and, therefore, is a promising alternate site for pacing in bradycardia and traditional CRT indications in cases where it can overcome left bundle branch block. Furthermore, it may open up new indications for pacing therapy in heart failure, such as targeting patients with PR prolongation, but a narrow QRS duration. In this article we explore the physiology, technology and potential roles of His bundle pacing in the prevention and treatment of heart failure.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing (CRT) shows clear benefits in heart failure with wide QRS, but results in narrow QRS have appeared conflicting. We tested the hypothesis that study design might have influenced findings. METHOD AND RESULTS: We identified all reports of CRT-P/D therapy in subjects with narrow QRS reporting effects on continuous physiological variables. Twelve studies (2074 patients) met these criteria. Studies were stratified by presence of bias-resistance steps: the presence of a randomized control arm over a single arm, and blinded outcome measurement. Change in each endpoint was quantified using a standardized effect size (Cohen's d). We conducted separate meta-analyses for each variable in turn, stratified by trial quality. In non-randomized, non-blinded studies, the majority of variables (10 of 12, 83%) showed significant improvement, ranging from a standardized mean effect size of +1.57 (95%CI +0.43 to +2.7) for ejection fraction to +2.87 (+1.78 to +3.95) for NYHA class. In the randomized, non-blinded study, only 3 out of 6 variables (50%) showed improvement. For the randomized blinded studies, 0 out of 9 variables (0%) showed benefit, ranging from -0.04 (-0.31 to +0.22) for ejection fraction to -0.1 (-0.73 to +0.53) for 6-minute walk test. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in degrees of resistance to bias, rather than choice of endpoint, explain the variation between studies of CRT in narrow-QRS heart failure addressing physiological variables. When bias-resistance features are implemented, it becomes clear that these patients do not improve in any tested physiological variable. Guidance from studies without careful planning to resist bias may be far less useful than commonly perceived.
