Table 4

Comparison of Primary and Secondary Outcomes (All-Cause Mortality, HFH, and Upgrade to Biventricular Pacing) Between HBP and RVP in All Patients, Patients With Ventricular Pacing Burden of >20% and Those With ≤20%

HBPRVPUnivariate AnalysisMultivariate Analysis
HR95% CIp ValueHR95% CIp Value
All patients332433
 All-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization and upgrade to biventricular pacing83 (25)137 (31.6)0.7080.538–0.9330.010.7100.534–0.9440.02
 All-cause mortality57 (17.2)93 (21.4)0.7280.523–1.0140.06
 Heart failure hospitalizations41 (12.4)76 (17.6)0.6420.439–0.9390.020.6330.430–0.9310.02
 Competing risk analysis for HFH (mortality as competing risk)0.6440.441–0.9400.020.6750.460–0.9920.045
 Upgrade to biventricular pacing1 (0.3)6 (1.4)0.2110.025–1.7520.15
Ventricular pacing >20%194278
 All-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization and upgrade to biventricular pacing49 (25.3)99 (35.6)0.6250.443–0.882<0.010.6500.456–0.9270.02
 All-cause mortality35 (18.0)66 (23.7)0.6870.455–1.0350.07
 Heart failure hospitalizations24 (12.4)56 (20.1)0.5480.340–0.8660.010.5430.334–0.8820.01
 Competing risk analysis for HFH (mortality as competing risk)0.5510.341–0.8900.010.5740.351–0.9390.03
 Upgrade to biventricular pacing1 (0.5)6 (2.2)0.2290.468–1.2990.34
Ventricular pacing ≤20%125152
 All-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization and upgrade to biventricular pacing27 (22)36 (23.7)0.7800.468–1.2990.34
 All-cause mortality15 (12)25 (16)0.6400.337–1.2160.17
 Heart failure hospitalizations16 (13)20 (13.2)0.8760.453–1.6920.69
 Competing risk analysis for HFH (mortality as competing risk)0.8760.458–1.6750.69
 Upgrade to biventricular pacing00

Values are n or n (%), unless otherwise indicated. Comparison between univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models are shown. Values in bold indicate significant hazard ratios and p values.

Abbreviations as in Table 3.