Conduction system pacing associated with reduced heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared with traditional right ventricular pacing in the Medicare population

Abstract

BackgroundConduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative therapy to traditional right ventricular (RV) pacing. However, most CSP studies reflect small cohorts or single-center experience. ObjectiveThis analysis compared CSP with dual-chamber (DC) RV pacing in a large, population-based cohort using data from the Micra Coverage with Evidence Development study. MethodsMedicare administrative claims data were used to identify patients implanted with a DC RV pacemaker. Lead placement data from Medtronic’s device registration system identified patients treated with CSP (n = 6197) using a 3830 catheter–delivered lead or DC RV (non–3830 lead, non–CSP placement; n = 16,989) at the same centers. CSP patients were stratified into left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP; n = 4738) and His bundle pacing (HBP; n = 1459). Incident heart failure hospitalizations, all-cause mortality, complication rates, and reinterventions at 6 months were analyzed. ResultsCSP patients with a 3830 catheter–delivered lead experienced significantly lower rates of incident heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; P = .02) and all-cause mortality at 6 months compared with DC RV patients (HR, 0.66; P < .0001). There was no difference in chronic complications (HR, 0.97; P = .62) or need for reintervention (HR, 0.95; P = .63) with CSP compared with DC RV, although LBBAP patients experienced significantly lower rates of complications (HR, 0.71; P = .001) compared with HBP. ConclusionDC pacemaker patients treated with CSP using a 3830 catheter–delivered lead experienced significant all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization benefits compared with DC RV pacing. LBBAP had lower complications compared with HBP. These real-world results align with findings in small clinical studies demonstrating the benefits of CSP.