ArticleMedicine2022
Evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing in comparison with right ventricular septal pacing.
Article in Medicine, 2022. 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.
- Updated Meta-Analysis of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Conduction System Disorders: Insights From New Evidence.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Disorders of cardiac rhythm in China.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has recently emerged as a new physiological pacing strategy. The purpose of this study is to compare LBBaP with right ventricular sepal pacing (RVSP) in terms of their clinical safety and efficacy.From February 2019 to May 2020, consecutive pacing-indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and divided into 2 groups. Ventricular synchrony indexes such as QRS duration (QRSd), interventricular mechanical delay and septal-posterior wall motion delay, left ventricular function such as left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing parameters, and complications were evaluated in the perioperative period and during follow-up.LBBaP was successful in 45 patients (88.2%), and finally 46 patients underwent RVSP. With LBBaP, ventricular electricalmechanical synchrony were similar to those of native-conduction system (P = .78). However, the ventricular electrical synchrony (QRSd, 108.47±7.64 vs 130.63±13.63ms, P < .001) and mechanical synchrony (interventricular mechanical delay, 27.68±4.33 vs 39.88±5.83, P < .001; septal-posterior wall motion delay, 40.39±23.21 vs 96.36±11.55, P < .001) in the LBBaP group were significantly better than those in the RVSP group. No significant differences in LVEDD (46 [44-48.5] vs 47 [44-52] mm, P = .49) and LVEF% (66 [62.5-70] vs 64 [61-68], P = .76) was observed between 2 groups at last follow-up. But, in the subgroup analysis, LVEDD was shorter (46 [44-49] vs 50 [47-58] mm, P = .03) and the LVEF% was higher (65 [62-68] vs 63 [58-65], P = .02) in the LBBaP-H (high ventricular pacing ratio >40%) group compared with RVSP-H group at last follow-up. There were lower capture thresholds (0.59±0.18V vs 0.71 ± 0.26 V, P = 0.01) at implantation in the LBBaP group than those in the RVSP group, with R-wave amplitudes and pacing impedances showing no significant difference between 2 groups. No serious complications were found in both 2 groups at implantation and follow-ups.This study confirms the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBaP, and it produces better ventricular electrical-mechanical synchrony than RVSP. The event of pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction is lower in the LBBaP-H group than RVSP-H group.
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.