Conduction system vs. biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Karakasis P, Vlachos K, Siontis KC, Cano Ó, Tzeis S, Strik M, Pamporis K, Leventopoulos G et al.

Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2026

1,320 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Aims: Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a physiologic alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiVP) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), yet its comparative effects remain uncertain. This meta-analysis sought to compare outcomes of CSP vs. BiVP in patients with HFrEF undergoing CRT.

Methods and results: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database were searched through 4 May 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. Thirteen RCTs including 1320 participants were analysed (657 CSP, 663 BiVP). Conduction system pacing was associated with a lower risk of the composite of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or all-cause mortality compared with BiVP (46 vs. 83 events; odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.93). No significant differences were observed for HHF alone (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36-1.27) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36-1.58). Conduction system pacing was associated with greater improvement in the 6-min walk distance (mean difference [MD] 21.53 m, 95% CI 4.33-38.73) and New York Heart Association functional class (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.07), but not quality of life. Conduction system pacing also reduced QRS duration compared with BiVP (MD -10.94 ms, 95% CI -17.55 to -4.34), with no significant differences in left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,320 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

• DOI
• PubMed
• Free full text
• Publisher page

Related studies

• Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis British medical journal, 2024
• Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2006
• Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials British medical journal, 2023
• Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants American Heart Journal, 2019
• Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis BMC Primary Care, 2022
• Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2022

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free