Scholarlink

Background <p>Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left bundle fascicular pacing (LBFP) are conduction system pacing techniques that preserve physiological ventricular activation. Whether proximal or distal capture yields superior electrical or echocardiographic outcomes is uncertain.</p> Objective <p>To systematically evaluate and compare LBFP versus left bundle branch trunk pacing (LBBP) in terms of electrical synchrony and echocardiographic characteristics in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.</p> Methods <p>We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane through May 21, 2025, for randomized and observational studies comparing LBFP with LBBP. Outcomes of interest included QRS duration, V6 R-wave peak time (RWPT), left ventricular activation time (LVAT), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and pacing thresholds. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed using I² statistics. Risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I.</p> Results <p>Six studies involving 2,989 patients (1,241 LBFP; 249 LBBP) were included. There were 3 prospective studies, 2 retrospective, and 1 that was both prospective and retrospective. There were no RCTs on this subject. LBFP was associated with a statistically shorter V6-RWPT (mean difference: − 3.50 ms; 95% CI: − 5.74 to − 1.26; <i>p</i> = 0.002), representing a modest electrophysiological difference without a corresponding difference in LVAT. No significant differences were observed in QRS duration, LVAT, LVEF, LVEDD, or pacing thresholds. Both modalities demonstrated high procedural success and low, stable capture thresholds.</p> Conclusion <p>LBFP achieved faster ventricular activation compared with LBBP, while maintaining comparable mechanical performance and pacing stability. Its broader anatomical accessibility and favorable electrical profile support LBFP as a practical alternative particularly when proximal conduction capture is not feasible. Further randomized trials are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ventricular lead positioning within the left conduction system in permanent cardiac pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月29日

查看全文
  • Mateus Barros de Araújo,
  • Gustavo Toaiari Staico,
  • Felipe Vieira Santana,
  • Vítor Bastos Lovisi,
  • Guilherme Dagostin de Carvalho,
  • Leonardo Antunes Mesquita

摘要

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left bundle fascicular pacing (LBFP) are conduction system pacing techniques that preserve physiological ventricular activation. Whether proximal or distal capture yields superior electrical or echocardiographic outcomes is uncertain.

Objective

To systematically evaluate and compare LBFP versus left bundle branch trunk pacing (LBBP) in terms of electrical synchrony and echocardiographic characteristics in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane through May 21, 2025, for randomized and observational studies comparing LBFP with LBBP. Outcomes of interest included QRS duration, V6 R-wave peak time (RWPT), left ventricular activation time (LVAT), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and pacing thresholds. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed using I² statistics. Risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I.

Results

Six studies involving 2,989 patients (1,241 LBFP; 249 LBBP) were included. There were 3 prospective studies, 2 retrospective, and 1 that was both prospective and retrospective. There were no RCTs on this subject. LBFP was associated with a statistically shorter V6-RWPT (mean difference: − 3.50 ms; 95% CI: − 5.74 to − 1.26; p = 0.002), representing a modest electrophysiological difference without a corresponding difference in LVAT. No significant differences were observed in QRS duration, LVAT, LVEF, LVEDD, or pacing thresholds. Both modalities demonstrated high procedural success and low, stable capture thresholds.

Conclusion

LBFP achieved faster ventricular activation compared with LBBP, while maintaining comparable mechanical performance and pacing stability. Its broader anatomical accessibility and favorable electrical profile support LBFP as a practical alternative particularly when proximal conduction capture is not feasible. Further randomized trials are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.