Therapeutic potential of conduction system pacing as a method for improving cardiac output during ventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) reduces cardiac output through high heart rates, loss of atrioventricular synchrony, and loss of ventricular synchrony. We studied the contribution of each mechanism and explored the potential therapeutic utility of His bundle pacing to improve cardiac output during VT. METHODS: Study 1 aimed to improve the understanding of mechanisms of harm during VT (using pacing simulated VT). In 23 patients with left ventricular impairment, we recorded continuous ECG and beat-by-beat blood pressure measurements. We assessed the hemodynamic impact of heart rate and restoration of atrial and biventricular synchrony. Study 2 investigated novel pacing interventions during clinical VT by evaluating the hemodynamic effects of His bundle pacing at 5 bpm above the VT rate in 10 patients. RESULTS: In Study 1, at progressively higher rates of simulated VT, systolic blood pressure declined: at rates of 125, 160, and 190 bpm, -22.2%, -42.0%, and -58.7%, respectively (ANOVA p < 0.0001). Restoring atrial synchrony alone had only a modest beneficial effect on systolic blood pressure (+ 3.6% at 160 bpm, p = 0.2117), restoring biventricular synchrony alone had a greater effect (+ 9.1% at 160 bpm, p = 0.242), and simultaneously restoring both significantly increased systolic blood pressure (+ 31.6% at 160 bpm, p = 0.0003). In Study 2, the mean rate of clinical VT was 143 ± 21 bpm. His bundle pacing increased systolic blood pressure by + 14.2% (p = 0.0023). In 6 of 10 patients, VT terminated with His bundle pacing. CONCLUSIONS: Restoring atrial and biventricular synchrony improved hemodynamic function in simulated and clinical VT. Conduction system pacing could improve VT tolerability and treatment.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Tachycardia Therapies: Past, Present and Future Directions.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have a long history and have progressed significantly since the 1980s. They have become an essential part of the prevention of sudden cardiac death, with a proven survival benefit in selected patient groups. However, with more recent trials and with the introduction of contemporary heart failure therapy, there is a renewed interest and new questions regarding the role of a primary prevention ICD, especially in patients with heart failure of non-ischaemic aetiology. This review looks at the history and evolution of ICDs, appraises the traditional evidence for ICDs and looks at issues relating to patient selection, risk stratification, competing risk, future directions and a proposed contemporary ICD decision framework.

Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia After MI: A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Background: The prognostic impact of ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients developing VT after MI. Methods: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with VT and prior MI. The prespecified primary endpoint was reconstructed individual patient assessment of all-cause mortality. Prespecified secondary endpoints included trial-level assessment of all-cause mortality, VT recurrence or defibrillator shocks and all-cause hospitalisations. Prespecified subgroup analysis was performed for ablation approaches involving only substrate modification without VT activation mapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed depending on the proportion of patients with prior MI included. Results: Eight trials, recruiting a total of 874 patients, were included. Of these 874 patients, 430 were randomised to catheter ablation and 444 were randomised to medical therapy. Catheter ablation reduced all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy when synthesising individual patient data (HR 0.63; 95% CI [0.41-0.96]; p=0.03), but not in trial-level analysis (RR 0.91; 95% CI [0.67-1.23]; p=0.53; I2=0%). Catheter ablation significantly reduced VT recurrence, defibrillator shocks and hospitalisations compared with medical therapy. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. Conclusion: In patients with postinfarct VT, catheter ablation reduces mortality.

Left bundle branch pacing with and without anodal capture: impact on ventricular activation pattern and acute haemodynamics.

AIMS: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can deliver physiological left ventricular activation, but typically at the cost of delayed right ventricular (RV) activation. Right ventricular activation can be advanced through anodal capture, but there is uncertainty regarding the mechanism by which this is achieved, and it is not known whether this produces haemodynamic benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients with LBBP leads in whom anodal capture eliminated the terminal R-wave in lead V1. Ventricular activation pattern, timing, and high-precision acute haemodynamic response were studied during LBBP with and without anodal capture. We recruited 21 patients with a mean age of 67 years, of whom 14 were males. We measured electrocardiogram timings and haemodynamics in all patients, and in 16, we also performed non-invasive mapping. Ventricular epicardial propagation maps demonstrated that RV septal myocardial capture, rather than right bundle capture, was the mechanism for earlier RV activation. With anodal capture, QRS duration and total ventricular activation times were shorter (116 ± 12 vs. 129 ± 14 ms, P < 0.01 and 83 ± 18 vs. 90 ± 15 ms, P = 0.01). This required higher outputs (3.6 ± 1.9 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V, P < 0.01) but without additional haemodynamic benefit (mean difference -0.2 ± 3.8 mmHg compared with pacing without anodal capture, P = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Left bundle branch pacing with anodal capture advances RV activation by stimulating the RV septal myocardium. However, this requires higher outputs and does not improve acute haemodynamics. Aiming for anodal capture may therefore not be necessary.

Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Stroke is a feared complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which embolic protection devices (EPDs) may mitigate. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of EPDs in TAVR. Methods: All RCTs comparing EPDs with control during TAVR were systematically identified. Prespecified primary end points were all stroke, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and all-cause mortality. Safety and neuroimaging parameters were assessed. Sensitivity analyses were stratified by EPD type. Study registration was a priori (CRD42022377939). Results: Eight trials randomizing 4043 patients were included. There was no significant difference between EPDs and control for all stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.65-1.18; P = .39; I2 = 0%), disabling stroke (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.31-1.46; P = .32; I2 = 8.6%), nondisabling stroke (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.40; P = .97; I2 = 0%), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.43-1.78; P = .71; I2 = 2.3%). There were no differences in safety end points of bleeding, vascular complications, or acute kidney injury. EPDs did not result in differences in total lesion volume or the number of new lesions. The Sentinel EPD significantly reduced the risk of disabling stroke (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88; P = .022; I2 = 0%) but did not affect all stroke, nondisabling stroke, or all-cause mortality. Conclusions: The totality of randomized data for EPDs during TAVR demonstrated no safety concerns or significant differences in clinical or neuroimaging end points. Analyses restricted to the Sentinel EPD demonstrated large, clinically meaningful reductions in disabling stroke. Ongoing RCTs may help validate these results.

Antiplatelet and Anti-Coagulation Therapy for Left-Sided Catheter Ablations: What Is beyond Atrial Fibrillation?

Aim: International guidelines on the use of anti-thrombotic therapies in left-sided ablations other than atrial fibrillation (AF) are lacking. The data regarding antiplatelet or anticoagulation strategies after catheter ablation (CA) procedures mainly derive from AF, whereas for the other arrhythmic substrates, the anti-thrombotic approach remains unclear. This survey aims to explore the current practices regarding antithrombotic management before, during, and after left-sided endocardial ablation, not including atrial fibrillation (AF), in patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy. Material and Methods: Electrophysiologists were asked to answer a questionnaire containing questions on antiplatelet (APT) and anticoagulation therapy for the following left-sided procedures: accessory pathway (AP), atrial (AT), and ventricular tachycardia (VT) with and without structural heart disease (SHD). Results: We obtained 41 answers from 41 centers in 15 countries. For AP, before ablation, only four respondents (9.7%) used antiplatelets and two (4.9%) used anticoagulants. At discharge, APT therapy was prescribed by 22 respondents (53.7%), and oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) only by one (2.4%). In patients with atrial tachycardia (AT), before ablation, APT prophylaxis was prescribed by only four respondents (9.7%) and OAC by eleven (26.8%). At discharge, APT was recommended by 12 respondents (29.3%) and OAC by 24 (58.5%). For VT without SHD, before CA, only six respondents (14.6%) suggested APT and three (7.3%) suggested OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, APT was recommended by fifteen respondents (36.6%) and OAC by five (12.2%). Regarding VT in SHD, before the procedure, eight respondents (19.5%) prescribed APT and five (12.2%) prescribed OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, the administration of anti-thrombotic therapy depended on the LV ejection fraction for eleven respondents (26.8%), on the procedure time for ten (24.4%), and on the radiofrequency time for four (9.8%), with a cut-off value from 1 to 30 min. Conclusions: Our survey indicates that the management of anti-thrombotic therapy surrounding left-sided endocardial ablation of patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy is highly variable. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the safest approach to these procedures.

Information theory-based direct causality measure to assess cardiac fibrillation dynamics.

Understanding the mechanism sustaining cardiac fibrillation can facilitate the personalization of treatment. Granger causality analysis can be used to determine the existence of a hierarchical fibrillation mechanism that is more amenable to ablation treatment in cardiac time-series data. Conventional Granger causality based on linear predictability may fail if the assumption is not met or given sparsely sampled, high-dimensional data. More recently developed information theory-based causality measures could potentially provide a more accurate estimate of the nonlinear coupling. However, despite their successful application to linear and nonlinear physical systems, their use is not known in the clinical field. Partial mutual information from mixed embedding (PMIME) was implemented to identify the direct coupling of cardiac electrophysiology signals. We show that PMIME requires less data and is more robust to extrinsic confounding factors. The algorithms were then extended for efficient characterization of fibrillation organization and hierarchy using clinical high-dimensional data. We show that PMIME network measures correlate well with the spatio-temporal organization of fibrillation and demonstrated that hierarchical type of fibrillation and drivers could be identified in a subset of ventricular fibrillation patients, such that regions of high hierarchy are associated with high dominant frequency.

Temporal Trends and Lesion Sets for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis and Meta-Regression.

BACKGROUND: Ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed for over 20 years, although success rates have remained modest. Several adjunctive lesion sets have been studied but none have become standard of practice. We sought to describe how the efficacy of ablation for PsAF has evolved in this time period with a focus on the effect of adjunctive ablation strategies. METHODS: Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. We performed meta-regression and trial sequential analysis. RESULTS: A total of 99 studies (15 424 patients) were included. Ablation for PsAF achieved the primary outcome (freedom of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia rate at 12 months follow-up) in 48.2% (5% CI, 44.0-52.3). Meta-regression showed freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months has improved over time, while procedure time and fluoroscopy time have significantly reduced. Through the use of cumulative meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis, we show that some ablation strategies may initially seem promising, but after several randomized controlled trials may be found to be ineffective. Trial sequential analysis showed that complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation is ineffective and further study of this treatment would be futile, while posterior wall isolation currently does not have sufficient evidence for routine use in PsAF ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall success rates from PsAF ablation and procedure/fluoroscopy times have improved over time. However, no adjunctive lesion set, in addition to pulmonary vein isolation, has been conclusively demonstrated to be beneficial. Through the use of trial sequential analysis, we highlight the importance of adequately powered randomized controlled trials, to avoid reaching premature conclusions, before widespread adoption of novel therapies.

Septal scar as a barrier to left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: The use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization is increasing, but implants are not always successful. We prospectively studied consecutive patients to determine whether septal scar contributes to implant failure. METHODS: Patients scheduled for bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy were prospectively enrolled. Recruited patients underwent preprocedural scar assessment by cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement imaging. LBBAP was attempted using a lumenless lead (Medtronic 3830) via a transeptal approach. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were recruited: 29 male, mean age 68 years, 10 ischemic, and 16 non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Pacing indication was bradycardia in 26% and cardiac resynchronization in 74%. The lead was successfully deployed to the left ventricular septum in 30/35 (86%) and unsuccessful in the remaining 5/35 (14%). Septal late gadolinium enhancement was significantly less extensive in patients where left septal lead deployment was successful, compared those where it was unsuccessful (median 8%, IQR 2%-18% vs. median 54%, IQR 53%-57%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of septal scar appears to make it more challenging to deploy a lead to the left ventricular septum via the transeptal route. Additional implant tools or alternative approaches may be required in patients with extensive septal scar.

A randomized controlled trial to investigate the use of acute coronary syndrome therapy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the COVID-19 Acute Coronary Syndrome trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer thrombotic complications. Risk factors for poor outcomes are shared with coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of an acute coronary syndrome regimen in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and coronary disease risk factors. METHODS: A randomized controlled, open-label trial across acute hospitals (United Kingdom and Brazil) added aspirin, clopidogrel, low-dose rivaroxaban, atorvastatin, and omeprazole to standard care for 28 days. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were 30-day mortality and bleeding. The key secondary outcome was a daily clinical status (at home, in hospital, on intensive therapy unit admission, or death). RESULTS: Three hundred twenty patients from 9 centers were randomized. The trial terminated early due to low recruitment. At 30 days, there was no significant difference in mortality (intervention vs control, 11.5% vs 15%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.38-1.41; p = .355). Significant bleeds were infrequent and were not significantly different between the arms (intervention vs control, 1.9% vs 1.9%; p > .999). Using a Bayesian Markov longitudinal ordinal model, it was 93% probable that intervention arm participants were more likely to transition to a better clinical state each day (OR, 1.46; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.88-2.37; Pr [beta > 0], 93%; adjusted OR, 1.50; 95% CrI, 0.91-2.45; Pr [beta > 0], 95%) and median time to discharge to home was 2 days shorter (95% CrI, -4 to 0; 2% probability that it was worse). CONCLUSION: Acute coronary syndrome treatment regimen was associated with a reduction in the length of hospital stay without an excess in major bleeding. A larger trial is needed to evaluate mortality.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: electrical treatment targets and mechanisms of action.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been developed as a treatment for patients with conduction system dysfunction and impairment of ventricular performance. The aim is to restore more physiological cardiac activation and thereby improve cardiac function, symptoms, and outcomes. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we discuss potential electrical treatment targets for patients with heart failure and how these electrical treatment targets may determine the optimal pacing approach for delivering CRT. EXPERT OPINION: The most well-established method for delivering CRT is biventricular pacing (BVP). BVP improves symptoms and reduces mortality in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, patients continue to suffer from heart failure symptoms and decompensations despite receiving BVP. There may be scope to deliver more effective CRT since BVP does not restore physiological ventricular activation. Furthermore, the results with BVP in patients with non-LBBB conduction system disease have been generally disappointing. Alternative pacing approaches to BVP are now available, including conduction system pacing and left ventricular endocardial pacing. These newer pacing approaches offer exciting potential to not only offer an alternative to coronary sinus lead implantation in the case of implant failure but to potentially deliver more effective treatment in LBBB and maybe even extend the indications for CRT beyond LBBB.

A randomized controlled trial to investigate the use of acute coronary syndrome therapy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the COVID-19 Acute Coronary Syndrome trial

BACKGROUND: patients hospitalised with covid-19 suffer thrombotic complications. risk factors for poor outcomes are shared with coronary artery disease. Objectives: to investigate efficacy of an acute coronary syndrome regimen in patients hospitalised with covid-19 and coronary disease risk factors. PATIENTS/METHODS: a randomised controlled open-label trial across acute hospitals (uk and brazil) added aspirin, clopidogrel, low-dose rivaroxaban, atorvastatin, and omeprazole to standard care for 28-days. primary efficacy and safety outcomes were 30-day mortality and bleeding. the key secondary outcome was a daily clinical status (at home, in hospital, on intensive therapy unit admission, death). RESULTS: 320 patients from 9 centres were randomised. the trial terminated early due to low recruitment. at 30 days there was no significant difference in mortality (intervention: 11.5% vs control: 15%, unadjusted or 0.73, 95%ci 0.38 to 1.41, p=0.355). significant bleeds were infrequent and not significantly different between the arms (intervention: 1.9% vs control 1.9%, p>0.999). using a bayesian markov longitudinal ordinal model, it was 93% probable that intervention arm participants were more likely to transition to a better clinical state each day (or 1.46, 95% cri 0.88 to 95 2.37, pr(beta>0) =93%; adjusted or 1.50, 95% cri 0.91 to 2.45, pr(beta>0) =95%) and median time to discharge home was two days shorter (95% cri -4 to 0, 2% probability that it was worse). CONCLUSIONS: acute coronary syndrome treatment regimen was associated with a 99 reduction in the length of hospital stay without an excess in major bleeding. a larger trial is needed to evaluate mortality.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI. CONCLUSION: In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes.

Effects of haemodynamically atrio-ventricular optimized His bundle pacing on heart failure symptoms and exercise capacity: the His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial.

AIMS: Excessive prolongation of PR interval impairs coupling of atrio-ventricular (AV) contraction, which reduces left ventricular pre-load and stroke volume, and worsens symptoms. His bundle pacing allows AV delay shortening while maintaining normal ventricular activation. HOPE-HF evaluated whether AV optimized His pacing is preferable to no-pacing, in a double-blind cross-over fashion, in patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms and either QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients had atrial and His bundle leads implanted (and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead if clinically indicated) and were randomized to 6 months of pacing and 6 months of no-pacing utilizing a cross-over design. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake during symptom-limited exercise. Quality of life, LVEF and patients' holistic symptomatic preference between arms were secondary outcomes. Overall, 167 patients were randomized: 90% men, 69 ± 10 years, QRS duration 124 ± 26 ms, PR interval 249 ± 59 ms, LVEF 33 ± 9%. Neither peak oxygen uptake (+0.25 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to +0.73, p = 0.3) nor LVEF (+0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.6, p = 0.4) changed with pacing but Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life improved significantly (-3.7, 95% CI -7.1 to -0.3, p = 0.03). Seventy-six percent of patients preferred His bundle pacing-on and 24% pacing-off (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: His bundle pacing did not increase peak oxygen uptake but, under double-blind conditions, significantly improved quality of life and was symptomatically preferred by the clear majority of patients. Ventricular pacing delivered via the His bundle did not adversely impact ventricular function during the 6 months.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.