Left bundle branch pacing vs biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 General characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Area	Centre	Study design	Number of participants in LBBP	Number of participants in BiVP	Patients	Male sex in LBBP (%)	Age (yr) in LBBP	Success rate in LBBP (%)	Follow up (mo)	ICM (%) in LBBP
Wang et al[16], 2020	China	1	Matched case-control	10	30	HF, LBBB	90.0	64.8 ± 7.1	100.0	6.0	10
Guo et al[17], 2020	China	1	Prospective observational	21	21	HF, LBBB	42.9	66.1 ± 9.7	87.5	14.3	9.5
Wu et al[18], 2021	China	1	Prospective non-randomized	32	54	HF, LBBB	43.8	67.2 ± 13	100.0	12.0	3.1
Li et al[19], 2020	China	3	Prospective observational	27	54	HF, LBBB	58.1	56.8 ± 1 0.1	81.1	6.0	18.9
Chen et al[8], 2022	China	4	Prospective observational	49	51	HF, LBBB	50.0	67.1 ± 8.9	91.1	12.0	0
Wang et al[7], 2022	China	2	Randomized controlled trial	20	20	HF, LBBB	35.0	62.3 ± 11.2	90.0	6.0	0

LBBP: Left bundle branch pacing; BiVP: Biventricular pacing; ICM: Implantable Cardiac Monitor; HF: Heart failure; LBBB: Left bundle branch block.