ArticleHeart rhythm O22021
Intracardiac conduction time as a predictor of cardiac resynchronization therapy response: Results of the BIO|SELECT pilot study.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement on site of latest electrical activation between right ventricular pacing and intrinsic conduction as target for left ventricular lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Biventricular or Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Strategy for Cardiac Resynchronization Based on a Hybrid Approach.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
20 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads are capable of sensing and pacing the left ventricle from 4 different electrodes, which may potentially improve patient response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
objectiveWe measured 3 different time intervals: right ventricular (RV)-sensed to LV-sensed during intrinsic rhythm (RVs-LVs), RV-paced to LV-sensed (RVp-LVs), and LV-paced to LV-sensed (LVp-LVs, between distal [LV1] and proximal pole on a quadripolar LV lead), and assessed their association with CRT response in terms of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) and a composite benefit index (CBI) comprising LVESV, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), brain natriuretic peptide level, and NYHA class.
methodsA CRT-defibrillator system with quadripolar LV lead was implanted in 196 patients (mean age 69 years, mean LVEF 30%, left bundle-branch block [LBBB] 58%). Conduction intervals were measured before hospital discharge. At baseline and 7-month follow-up, echocardiographic and other components of CBI were determined.
resultsThe mean RVs-LV1s, RVp-LV1s, and LVp-LVs delays were 68 ± 38 ms, 132 ± 34 ms, and 99 ± 31 ms, respectively. From baseline to 7 months, LVESV decreased by 17.3% ± 28.6%. The RVs-LV1s interval correlated stronger with CBI (R
conclusionThe RVs-LVs interval during intrinsic rhythm is relevant for CRT success, whereas RVp-LVs and LVp-LVs intervals did not predict CRT response.
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.