Abstract: Five studies (reported in 10 papers) were identified. However, three of the five studies provided un-usable data. Thus the data from only two studies (reported in seven papers) with 105 participants were included for this review. There was insufficient data to compare results on all-cause mortality, cost effectiveness, exercise capacity, Quality of life and Peak O2 consumption. When comparing active pacing versus placebo pacing on exercise capacity, one study showed that exercise time decreased from (13.1 ± 4.4) minutes to (12.6 ± 4.3) minutes in the placebo group and increased from (12.1 ± 5.6) minutes to (12.9 ± 4.2) minutes in the treatment group (MD 0.30; 95% CI -1.54 to 2.14). Statistically significant data from the same study showed that left ventricular outflow tract obstruction decreased from (71 ± 32) mm Hg to (52 ± 34) mm Hg in the placebo group and from (70 ± 24) mm Hg to (33 ± 27) mm Hg in the active pacing group (MD -19.00; 95% CI -32.29 to -5.71). This study was also able to show that New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class decreased from (2.5 ± 0.5) to (2.2 ± 0.6) in the inactive pacing group and decreased from (2.6 ± 0.5) to (1.7 ± 0.7) in the placebo group (MD -0.50; 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22). When comparing active pacing versus trancoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy (TASH), data from one study showed that NYHA functional class decreased from (3.2 ± 0.7) to (1.5 ± 0.5) in the TASH group and decreased from (3.0 ± 0.1) to (1.9 ± 0.6) in the pacemaker group. This study also showed that LV wall thickness remained unchanged in the active pacing group compared to reduction from (22 ± 4) mm to (17 ± 3) mm in the TASH group (MD 0.60; 95% CI -5.65 to 6.85) and that LV outflow tract obstruction decreased from (80 ± 35.5) mm Hg in the TASH group to (49.3 ± 37.7) mm Hg in the pacemaker group. Trials published to date lack information on clinically relevant end-points. Existing data is derived from small trials at high risk of bias, which concentrate on physiological measures. Their results are inconclusive. Further large and high quality trials with more appropriate outcomes are warranted.

Plain-language summary: The prevalence of HCM in the general population, as determined from echocardiographic studies in the United States, Japan, and China, has ranged from 0.16 to 0.29 percent. Treatment options for HCM ranges from drugs to surgery with each having its own limitations. Active cardiac pacing was suggested as a treatment option in some trials. We conducted this review to assess the available evidence on the effects of active pacing in drug-refractory or drug-intolerant HCM patients. Five studies (reported in 10 papers) were found to be relevant. However, three of the five studies provided un-usable data. Thus data from only two studies (reported in seven papers) with 105 participants was included for this review. There was insufficient data to compare results on all-cause mortality, cost effectiveness, exercise capacity, Quality of life and Peak O2 consumption. There was no difference in exercise capacity when comparing active pacing versus placebo pacing. However left ventricular outflow tract obstruction decreased significantly in the active pacing group compared to placebo. New York Heart Association functional class increased in the active pacing group compared to the placebo group and this was also observed when comparing active pacing versus trancoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy. Interpretation of these data needs to be cautious because existing data is derived from small trials at high risk of bias, which concentrate on physiological measures. Their results are inconclusive. Further large and high quality trials with more appropriate outcomes are warranted.