Abstract:Type of funding sources: None. Despite optimal medical treatment, the 5-years mortality and HF readmission rate was 75.3% and 48.5%, respectively. The current guidelines recommended cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by implanting biventricular pacing (BVP) for specific group of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in order to reduce the mortality and the risk of HF events by 34%. However, 20% to 40% patients might not respond or even get clinical deterioration after receiving such device. To overcome the non-responders, His bundle pacing (HBP) emerges recently as one of the therapeutic options. His bundle pacing implantation potentially results in the narrower QRS duration as well as more improvement in left ventricle (LV) function compared with BVP in patients with LBBB. On top of that, HBP might become a more cost-effective solution, compared to CRT, particularly for the majority of developing countries in Asia. We aim to elaborate the clinical efficacy of HBP in specific patients with HF, compared to BVP. This HBP was implanted either as a primary therapeutic strategy for CRT candidates or as a rescue strategy for BVP non-responders. This study is registered. A structured search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, and Clinicaltrial.gov. Inclusion criteria were: Age >18 years old, NYHA II-IV, QRS duration ≥120 milliseconds, and left (LBBB) or right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology. The primary endpoints were change in QRS duration, improvement in LVEF, improvement in NYHA class, and cardiovascular (CV) event. A total of 8 final articles involving 361 HF patients were included for analysis, with a male preponderance. The QRS duration was significantly narrower in HBP (MD: -23.44; 95%CI -34.92 to -11.97; P<0.001) compared to BVP. There was no statistically significant LVEF improvement between HBP group and BVP group in HF patients who were CRT candidates (MD: 4.63; 95%CI -4.47 to 13.74; P=0.32). The improvement in NYHA class varied between studies. One study reported comparable improvement between HBP and BVP, while another study reported better improvement in HBP compared to BVP. In terms of CV outcome, there was no significant difference in CV hospitalization and mortality rate. Heart failure hospitalization occurred both in HBP and BVP group, but the difference was not significant between groups. Improvement in QRS duration, LVEF, and NYHA class occurred in both LBBB and RBBB. HBP provides better electrical resynchronization compared to BVP. Additionally, some degree of reverse LV remodelling was also observed in HBP group of patients with either LBBB and RBBB patterns. However, the benefits of HBP in reducing HF hospitalization and CV mortality remain indeterminate. Further RCTs with large samples are still required to evaluate the superiority of HBP, compared to BVP for CRT, in reducing mortality and HF hospitalization. Changes in QRS duration Improvement in LVEF

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and electrical dyssynchrony

Cardiovascular imaging in conduction system pacing: What does the clinician need?

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing

Conduction System Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Left bundle branch area pacing: A promising modality for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Comparison Of Synchronization Between Left Bundle Branch And His Bundle Pacing In Atrial Fibrillation Patients: An Intra-Patient-Controlled Study

Feasibility and Safety of Both His Bundle Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Intermediate Term Follow-Up

Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block

Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function

Recruitment of the cardiac conduction system for optimal resynchronization therapy in failing heart

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta‐analysis with meta‐regression

Physiology of biventricular pacing

Comparison of immediate changes of repolarization parameters after left bundle branch area pacing and traditional biventricular pacing in heart failure patients

Biventricular versus Conduction System Pacing after Atrioventricular Node Ablation in Heart Failure Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Mechanical Synchrony and Myocardial Work in Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Comparison with Biventricular Pacing.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients with mid-range ejection fraction

Comparison of his bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Permanent His bundle pacing in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Patients: Select Site - Cohort Study

Long-term efficacy of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure complicated with left bundle branch block