ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2021
Is left ventricular superior to right ventricular pacing in children with congenital or postoperative complete heart block?
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brazilian Guideline for Exercise Testing in Children and Adolescents - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Guideline
- Dyssynchrony-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Children: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Contemporary Management.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Is left ventricular superior to right ventricular pacing in children with congenital or postoperative complete heart block?' Altogether, 19 papers were found using the reported search, of which 9 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Two large multicentric showed that site of pacing was the major determinant of left ventricular (LV) function with LV pacing being superior to RV pacing, though the number of patients paced via LV was lesser in comparison to right ventricular (RV). There were 2 prospective, 2 retrospective and 1 cross-sectional studies with fewer patients that demonstrated superiority of LV over RV pacing in preserving LV function. Only 1 small-scale retrospective study showed similar results of LV and RV pacing on LV function. One cross-sectional study showed superiority of LV apical pacing on exercise tolerance. As per the existing literature, LV apex seems to be the most optimal site for epicardial pacing while RV free wall pacing has the highest risk of causing LV dysfunction over the long term. We conclude that LV pacing appears to be superior to RV pacing in terms of long-term effect on cardiac function and ventricular synchrony.
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.