Observational studyClinical cardiology2020
Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conduction system pacing in prosthetic heart valves.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2023Pooled it
- The electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters of permanent left bundle branch pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2022Pooled it
- Conduction system pacing vs right ventricular pacing after TAVR: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- The Functional and Imaging Implications of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of left bundle branch area pacing in patients with and without a history of open-heart surgery.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Case report: A complex case of valve-in-valve TAVI and left bundle branch pacing for severe aortic regurgitation with partially corrected type A aortic dissection and low ejection fraction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Electrophysiologic Implications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Incidence, Outcomes, and Current Management Strategies.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- Feasibility and Outcomes of Upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy and Infranodal Atrioventricular Block.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Conduction System Pacing for Post Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Patients: Comparison With Right Ventricular Pacing.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Conduction Disorders Following Prosthetic Cardiac Valves.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation.Clinical cardiology · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality for preventing pacing induced cardiomyopathy in patients complicated with conduction abnormalities (CAs) after prosthetic valve (PV) implantation.
objectiveThe present study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBBP in this patient population.
methodsLBBP was attempted in 20 patients complicated with atrioventricular block after PV implantation. Surface, intracardiac electrical measurements, and echocardiographic data were documented. Lead parameters and complications were routinely tracked at implantation and each follow-up visit.
resultsLBBP was successful in 90% (18/20) participants. The paced QRS duration and the stimulus to left ventricular activation time were 106.8 ± 6.8 ms and 65.5 ± 5.4 ms, respectively. Left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in 61.1% (11/18) patients who succeeded in LBBP. During the procedure, the mean unipolar myocardium capture threshold was 0.51 ± 0.15 V@0.4 ms while the unipolar bundle capture threshold was 0.84 ± 0.51 V@0.4 ms. The mean fluoroscopic exposure time and the radiation dose were 13.0 ± 9.2 min and 81.7 ± 8.3 mGy, respectively. The average follow-up period was 10.4 ± 5.9 months (range 3-23 months). Pacing parameters remained stable and no significant lead-related complications occurred during the whole observation period.
conclusionsLBBP was safe and feasible in patients with PVs. Acceptable and stable pacing parameters could be expected during the procedure and the follow-ups.
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.