ArticleAnnals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc2022
Left ventricular septal pacing versus left bundle branch pacing in the treatment of atrioventricular block.
Article in Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06540521 (Intracardiac Electrical Characteristics of LBBAP), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Intracardiac Electrical Characteristics of LBBAP
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Left bundle branch pacing is a superior pacing strategy compared to left ventricular septal pacing: insights from the pooled clinical evidence.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of left bundle branch pacing compared with left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- An in silico guide for ventriculo-ventricular delay programming for left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy.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
- Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients with Pure Aortic Regurgitation after TAVI.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Current Advance, Challenges and Future Perspectives of Conduction System Pacing.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Article
- Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Left ventricular septal pacing versus left bundle branch pacing in the treatment of atrioventricular block.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2022Article
- Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical response of LVSP as an alternative to LBBP.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of pacemaker implantation, and 46 consecutive patients with pacemaker implantation were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into the LBBP and LVSP groups. Electrocardiogram characteristics, pacing parameters, cardiac function, and safety events were assessed during implantation and 12-month follow-up.
resultsThe procedure time was significantly increased in the LBBP group compared with the LVSP group (53.52 ± 14.39 min vs. 38.13 ± 11.52 min, respectively, p = .000). The pacing QRS duration (PQRSD) decreased by 14.09 ± 41.80 ms in the LBBP group and increased by 9.70 ± 29.60 ms in the LVSP group (p = .031). Furthermore, the left ventricle activation time (LVAT) was shorter in the LBBP group than in the LVSP group (48.70 ± 13.67 ms vs. 58.70 ± 13.67 ms, p = .032). During the 12-month follow-up, pacing thresholds remained low and stable, and there was no significant decrease in cardiac function. No adverse event was observed during the follow-up period.
conclusionsBoth LBBP and LVSP are safe and feasible methods. LVSP is a good option when multichannel electrophysiological instruments are not available and when the time available for the procedure is limited.
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.