Observational studyClinical cardiology2020
Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block.
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 34 papers, 8 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Left bundle branch area pacing vs. biventricular pacing significantly improves clinical outcomes and cardiac remodeling in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Improved all-cause mortality with left bundle branch area pacing compared to biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure Requiring Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- His-Purkinje system pacing versus biventricular pacing in clinical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Conduction system pacing is superior to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: Insights from the pooled clinical studies.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Pooled 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
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Heart Failure: A Physiological Alternative to Conventional Biventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and a Step Towards Personalized Device Therapy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Left bundle branch pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in the long-term: a prospective, non-randomized, cohort study.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Article
- A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Physiological Versus Conventional Pacing.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Left Bundle Branch Pacing Improved the Outcome of End-Stage Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Case Report.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of His bundle pacing vs. right ventricular pacing in patients with conduction disturbances following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Review
- Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical and Electrophysiological Outcomes of Left Bundle Area Pacing Compared to Biventricular Pacing: An Updated Meta-analysis.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Article
- Left bundle branch pacingWorld journal of cardiology · 2024Article
- Long-term efficacy of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure complicated with left bundle branch block.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Left bundle branch area pacing vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). HYPOTHESIS: LBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.
methodsHeart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss's criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching was applied to match patients into LBBP-CRT group and BiV-CRT group. Then, the electrographic data, the echocardiographic data and New York heart association (NYHA) class were compared between the groups.
resultsTwenty-one patients with successful LBBP procedure and another 21 matched patients with successful BiV-CRT procedure were finally enrolled in the study. The QRS duration (QRSd) was narrowed from 167.7 ± 14.9 ms to 111.7 ± 12.3 ms (P < .0001) in the LBBP-CRT group and from 163.6 ± 13.8 ms to 130.1 ± 14.0 ms (P < .0001) in the BiV-CRT group. A trend toward better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was recorded in the LBBP-CRT group (50.9 ± 10.7% vs 44.4 ± 13.3%, P = .12) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group at the 6-month follow-up. A trend toward better echocardiographic response was documented in patients receiving LBBP-CRT procedure (90.5% vs 80.9%, P = .43) and more super CRT response was documented in the LBBP-CRT group (80.9% vs 57.1%, P = .09) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group.
conclusionsLBBP-CRT can dramatically improve the electrical synchrony in heart failure patients with LBBB. Meanwhile, compared with the traditional BiV-CRT, it has a tendency to significantly improve LVEF and enhance the NYHA cardiac function scores.
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.