ArticleBMJ open2021
Comparison of efficacy and safety of His-Purkinje system pacing versus cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent studies have shown that the His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) can achieve electrocardiomechanical synchronisation, and thus improve cardiac function. For patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) who should be treated with pacemaker upgrade, the HPSP is a viable alternative to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). However, no randomised controlled trial has been performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HPSP in patients with PICM. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of HPSP with that of traditional CRT in the treatment of patients with PICM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-centre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. This trial was carried out at the cardiac centre of Beijing Anzhen Hospital. A total of 46 patients with PICM who needed pacemaker upgrade treatment between January 2022 and December 2023 will be enrolled in this study. Patients will be randomised into an investigational group (HPSP) and a control group (CRT) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the duration of QRS complex (QRS width), and the secondary outcomes are NT-proBNP (N terminal pro B type natriuretic peptide), C reactive protein, the number of antibiotics used, left ventricular ejection fraction, end systolic volume, end diastolic volume, the hospitalisation duration, the incidence of postoperative infection, pacemaker parameters (threshold, sensing and impedance), the 6-minute walking test, and quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey scale), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, heart failure-related rehospitalisation rate, other rehospitalisation rates, major complication rates and procedure costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Beijing Anzhen Hospital Medical Ethics Committee (No. 2020043X). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000034265).
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.