ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022
Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Comparison with Right Ventricular Septal Pacing in Patients with High Ventricular Pacing Ratio ≥40.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients with percent ventricular pacing (VP%) ≥40%. Methods: Fifty-four patients with VP% ≥40% were retrospectively studied, including 33 patients with LBBaP and 21 patients with RVSP. QRS duration (QRSd), interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) and septal-posterior wall motion delay (SPWMD) were measured to evaluate ventricular synchrony. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH), pacing parameters, and complications were evaluated postoperatively and at follow-ups. Results: The mean follow-up duration of the study participants was 13.80 ± 4.47 months. In the LBBaP group, no significant differences were noted in paced QRSd, IVMD and SPWMD of the LBBaP capture and intrinsic-conduction modes, but the paced QRSd was narrower (QRSd, 110.88 ± 7.37 vs 132.90 ± 14.78 ms, P< 0.0001) and the IVMD and SPWMD were lower when compared with the RVSP group (IVMD, 28.16 ± 4.76 vs 40.28 ± 6.97 ms, P <0.0001; SPWMD, 43.68 ± 26.41 vs 97.94 ± 12.77 ms, P <0.0001). LBBaP was associated with better left ventricular function in comparison with RVSP during follow-ups (LVEDD, 47.09 ± 4.47 vs 51.28 ± 7.58, P = 0.017; LVEF, 64.81± 5.49 vs 60.44 ± 9.28, P = 0.041). Patients with LBBaP had lower occurrences of HFH than patients with RVSP (3.13% vs 27.78%, P = 0.034). Pacing parameters showed no differences between the two groups and remained stable throughout the study period. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that LBBaP may be more suitable for patients requiring long-term high ventricular pacing ratio.
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.