ReviewChinese medical journal2019
Recent approaches to His-Purkinje system pacing.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparisons of electrophysiological characteristics, pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects in right ventricular septal pacing, right ventricular apical pacing and left bundle branch area pacing.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
- Speckle tracking imaging evaluation of left ventricular myocardial work comparing right ventricular septal pacing with His-Purkinje system area pacing.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing.Clinical cardiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.