ReviewAnatolian journal of cardiology2019
Comparison of left ventricular and biventricular pacing: Rationale and clinical implications.
Review in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multipoint Left Ventricular Pacing as Alternative Approach in Cases of Biventricular Pacing Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current trends in virtual electrophysiology use for risk stratification and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Wireless, fully implantable cardiac stimulation and recording with on-device computation for closed-loop pacing and defibrillation.Science advances · 2022Article
- Multipoint left ventricular pacing as an addition to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a bridge to the holy grail?American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2021Review
- Cardiac Electronic Devices: Future Directions and Challenges.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy constitutes a cornerstone in advanced heart failure treatment, when there is evidence of dyssynchrony, especially by electrocardiography. However, it is plagued both by persistently high (~30%) rates of nonresponse and by deterioration of right ventricular function, owing to iatrogenic dyssynchrony in the context of persistent apical pacing to ensure delivery of biventricular pacing. Left ventricular pacing has long been considered an alternative to standard biventricular pacing and can be achieved as easily as inserting a single pacing electrode in the coronary sinus. Although monoventricular left ventricular pacing has been proven to yield comparable results with the standard biventricular modality, it is the advent of preferential left ventricular pacing, combining both the powerful resynchronization potential of multipolar coronary sinus and right-sided electrodes acting in concert and the ability to preserve intrinsic, physiological right ventricular activation. In this review, we aim to present the underlying principles and modes for delivering left ventricular pacing, as well as to highlight advantages of preferential over monoventricular configuration. Finally, current clinical evidence, following implementation of automated algorithms, regarding performance of left ventricular as compared with biventricular pacing will be discussed. It is expected that the field of preferential left ventricular pacing will grow significantly over the following years, and its combination with other advanced pacing modalities may promote clinical status and prognosis of patients with advanced dyssynchronous heart failure.
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.