ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2022
Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.Heart rhythm · 2023Guideline
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Reverts Electromechanical Window Negativity to a Similar Extent as Biventricular Pacing.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Time-dependent repolarization changes following left bundle branch area pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- Novel sites for pacemaker lead implantation and different routes for their extraction.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022Article
- Success rates, challenges and troubleshooting of left bundle branch area pacing as a cardiac resynchronization therapy for treating patients with heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch (LBB) pacing is a novel pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to both right ventricular pacing for symptomatic bradycardia and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). A substantial amount of data is reported by relatively few, highly experienced centres. This study describes the first experience of LBB pacing in a high-volume device centre.
methodsSuccess rates (i.e. the ability to achieve LBB pacing), electrophysiological parameters and complications at implant and up to 6 months of follow-up were prospectively assessed in 100 consecutive patients referred for various pacing indications.
resultsThe mean age was 71 ± 11 years and 65% were male. Primary pacing indication was atrioventricular (AV) block in 40%, CRT in 42%, and sinus node dysfunction or refractory atrial fibrillation prior to AV node ablation in 9% each. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was < 50% in 57% of patients, mean baseline QRS duration 145 ± 34 ms. Overall LBB pacing was successful in 83 of 100 (83%) patients but tended to be lower in patients with CRT pacing indication (69%, p = ns). Mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT) during LBB pacing was 81 ms and paced QRS duration was 120 ± 19 ms. LBB capture threshold and R‑wave sense at implant was 0.74 ± 0.4 mV at 0.4 ms and 11.9 ± 5.9 V and remained stable at 6‑month follow-up. No complications occurred during implant or follow-up.
conclusionLBB pacing for bradycardia pacing and resynchronisation therapy can be easily adopted by experienced implanters, with favourable success rates and safety profile.
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.