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.

Aims The effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure. Methods and results We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49–0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28–1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. Conclusion In patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations.

Guidelines help clinicians to deliver high-quality care with therapies based on up-to-date evidence. There has been significant progress in the management of heart failure with regards to both medication and cardiac device therapy. These advances have been incorporated into national and international guidelines with varying degrees of success. This article reviews current guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence in the UK and compares this with European Society of Cardiology guidelines, and evaluates how differences between them may impact on clinical practice.

No abstract