Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30614860›Full record

ReviewChinese medical journal2019

Recent approaches to His-Purkinje system pacing.

Li-Ting Cheng, Jun-Meng Zhang, Ze-Feng Wang, Hui-Kuan Gao, Yong-Quan Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chinese medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Li-Ting ChengDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Jun-Meng ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Ze-Feng WangDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Hui-Kuan GaoDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Yong-Quan WuDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePhysiologic cardiac pacing is a novel technique which has been largely popularized in recent decades. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been long considered the most physiologic pacing method; however, with the widespread implementation of this method, its disadvantages have become apparent. In this context, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP)-directly engaged in the His-Purkinje system-has been foreseen as the best pacing method to mimic physiologic activation patterns. This review aimed to summarize recent approaches to physiologic cardiac pacing. DATA SOURCES: This review included fully peer reviewed publications up to July 2018, found in the PubMed database using the keywords "His bundle branch pacing," "right ventricular pacing," and "physiologic pacing." STUDY SELECTION: All selected articles were in English, with no restriction on study design.

resultsThe HBP has been studied worldwide, and is currently considered the most physiologic pacing method. However, it has disadvantages, such as high pacing threshold, unsatisfactory sensing and long procedure times, among others. Although LBBP is theoretically superior to HBP, the clinical relevance of this difference remains under debate, as few large randomized clinical trials with LBBP have been published.

conclusionsAlthough HBP indeed appears to be the most physiologic pacing method, it has certain shortcomings, such as high pacing threshold, difficult implantation due to specific anatomic features, and others. Further studies are required to clarify the clinical significance of LBBP.

Indexed as

Cardiac Pacing, ArtificialCardiac CatheterizationCardiac Resynchronization TherapyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30614860
PMCPMC6365279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.