ArticleClinical cardiology2019
Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated Meta-Analysis of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Conduction System Disorders: Insights From New Evidence.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.Heart rhythm · 2023Guideline
- His-Purkinje system pacing versus biventricular pacing in clinical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes Associated With His-Purkinje System Pacing vs. Biventricular Pacing, in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of His-bundle pacing/left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Pooled it
- A network meta-analysis and systematic review of change in QRS duration after left bundle branch pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, or right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemaker.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of stress on myocardial perfusion and left ventricular synchrony in patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Ventricular lead positioning within the left conduction system in permanent cardiac pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Takotsubo syndrome in the setting of cardiac pacing: A review of mechanistic and clinical perspectives.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Physiological pacing: just a lot of buzz or the next paradigm shift in bradycardia pacing?Singapore medical journal · 2026Review
- Impact of a Practice-wide Switch from Traditional Right Ventricular Pacing to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025Article
- European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical consensus statement on indications for conduction system pacing, with special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC and endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Septal Pacing: Mid-term Results and Learning Curve.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Right Heart Structure and Function in Pacemaker-dependent Patients by Two-Dimensional Speckle Tracking Echocardiography: A 1-Year Prospective Cohort Study.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Permanent left bundle branch area pacing improves mitral regurgitation and cardiac function in patients with right bundle branch block.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Article
- Pitfalls and tips for lumenless lead extraction inserted deep within the ventricular septum.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- A Study to Analyse the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Used in Young Children.Pediatric cardiology · 2024Article
- Left bundle branch pacing with and without anodal capture: impact on ventricular activation pattern and acute haemodynamics.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing strategy that produces comparable clinical effects to His bundle pacing (HBP).
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate clinical outcomes of LBBaP vs RVP. METHODS AND
resultsFrom April 2018 to September 2018, we included 44 patients under continuous pacemaker implantation. Patients were randomly divided into the LBBaP group and conventional RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the LBBaP group displayed significantly increased operative (90.10 ± 19.68 minutes vs 61.57 ± 6.62 minutes, P < .001) and X-ray exposure times (15.55 ± 5.62 minutes vs 4.67 ± 2.06 minutes, P < .001). The lead threshold of the LBBaP group was increased (0.68 ± 0.20 mV vs 0.51 ± 0.0 mV, P = .001), while the R-wave amplitude and ventricular impedance did not significantly differ between the two groups. The conventional RVP procedure significantly widened the QRS complex (93.62 ± 8.28 ms vs 135.19 ± 12.21 ms, P = .001), whereas the LBBaP had no effect on QRS complex (130.13 ± 43.30 ms vs 112.63 ± 12.14 ms, P = .904). Furthermore, the LBBaP procedure significantly narrowed the QRS complex in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (168.43 ± 38.870 ms vs 119.86 ± 6.69 ms, P = .019).
conclusionLBBaP is a new physiological, safe and effective pacing procedure with a high overall success rate. Compared to conventional RVP, LBBaP can correct LBBB, thereby improving cardiac electrical dyssynchrony.
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.