Table 2.

Study Summary for HBP and CRT

Study	Design and Follow-Up	n	Success Rate (%)	Outcomes
Ajijola et al51 2017	Single center Prospective Observational -12 months	21	76	Clinical: NYHA III to II QRSd: 180-129 ms LVEF (%): 27-41
Sharma et al26 2018	Multicenter Prospective Observational -14 months	106	90	Clinical: NYHA 2.8-1.8 QRSd: 157-118 ms LVEF (%): 30-44 for BVP failure group, 25-40 for primary HBP group
Upadhyay et al28 2019	Multicenter Prospective Randomized crossover trial -12 months	41	76	QRSd: 172-144 ms LVEF (%): 26-32
Huang et al29 2019	Single center Prospective Observational -37 months	74	76	Clinical: NYHA 2.8-1.0 QRSd: 171-113 ms *in selective HBP group: 173-105 ms *in non-selective HBP group: 161-140 ms LVEF (%): 31-57
Sharma et al26 2018: Permanent HBP in RBBB	Multicenter Retrospective Observational -15 months	39	95	Clinical: NYHA 2.8-2.0 QRSd: 158- 127 ms LVEF (%): 31- 39 26- 34 = HBP appears to be a suitable treatment alternative for patients with RBBB and depressed LVEF.

HBP, His-bundle pacing; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; RBBB, right bundle branch block; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction.