Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

From: His-Purkinje system pacing versus biventricular pacing in clinical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Country

Year

Article type

Design

Indication

Age

Sample size

Male(%)

Follow-up(M)

LBBaP/HBP

BVP

LBBaP/HBP

BVP

LBBaP/HBP

BVP

Lustgarten et al.

U. S

2015

Randomized trial

HBP vs BVP

QRS > 130 ms

71.3 (55.91–86.75)

71.3 (55.91–86.75)

12

12

66.7

66.7

6

Upadhyay et al.

U. S

2019

Randomized trial

HBP vs BVP

NYHA II-IV with QRS > 120 ms

63.4 ± 13.3

65.5 ± 12.4

16

24

56.2

66.7

6

Vijayaraman et al.

U. S

2019

Observational study

HBP vs BVP

NYHA III-IV, LVEF ≤ 35%, LBBB and IVCD with QRS ≥ 140 ms

72 ± 15

72 ± 15

27

27

85

85

14

Li et al.

China

2020

Observational study

LBBaP vs BVP

HF, LVEF ≤ 35%, LBBB

57.5 ± 9.8

58.5 ± 8.5

27

54

51.9

61.1

6

Guo et al.

China

2020

Observational study

LBBaP vs BVP

HF, LVEF ≤ 35%, LBBB, NYHA II-IV

66.1 ± 9.7

65.1 ± 7.5

21

21

42.9

42.9

6

Wang et al.

China

2020

Observational study

LBBaP vs BVP

HF, CLBBB with QRS > 130 ms, LVEF ≤ 35%, NYHA II-IV

64.8 ± 7.25

62.9 ± 10.33

10

30

90

76.6

6

Chen et al.

China

2021

Observational study

LBBaP vs BVP

HF, LBBB with QRS > 150 ms, LVEF ≤ 35%, NYHA II-IV

67.14 ± 8.88

64.37 ± 8.74

49

51

49.98

58.82

12

Wu et al.

China

2021

Observational study

LBBaP or HBP vs BVP

HF, LVEF ≤ 40%, CLBBB

67.2 ± 13/68.3 ± 10

68.3 ± 10

32/49

54

43.8/63.3

53.7

12

Ma et al.

China

2021

Observational study

HBP vs BVP

Brady-arrhythmia, Permanent AF and HF with HFrEF

70.32 ± 12.36

66.8 ± 7.26

37

15

70.27

66.7

18

Vinther et al.

Denmark

2021

Randomized trial

HBP vs BVP

HF with LVEF ≤ 35%, NYHA II-IV, LBBB with QRS > 130 ms

63.2 ± 9.2

67.4 ± 9.1

19

31

42

77

6

Zizek et al.

Slovenia

2021

Observational study

HBP vs BVP

Permanent AF, 35% ≤ LVEF < 50%, QRS ≤ 120 ms,NYHA II-III

68.5 ± 6.8

69.3 ± 6.6

12

12

41.7

58.3

6

Hua et al.

China

2022

Observational study

LBBaP vs BVP

HF with NYHA II-IV, QRS ≥ 150, CLBBB

65.5 ± 6.91

67.5 ± 11.69

21

20

15

16

24

Vijayaraman et al.

U. S

2022

Observational study

CSP vs BVP

LVEF ≤ 35% with class II-IV heart failure symptoms

72 ± 13

72 ± 12

258

219

170

156

27

  1. IVCD intraventricular conduction delay, CLBBB complete left bundle branch block, HFrEF heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, AF atrial fibrillation, CSP LBBaP and HBP