ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
Left bundle branch potential predicts better electrical synchrony in bradycardia patients receiving left bundle branch pacing.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing modified chest leads as a substitute for electrophysiological systems in left bundle branch area pacing.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technology. We aim to explore the relation between LBB potential (LBB Po) and left ventricular (LV) electrical/mechanical synchrony in bradycardia patients without heart failure (HF) receiving LBBP.
methodsA total of 62 patients undergoing LBBP were categorized by LBB Po: the LBB Po positive (+) group and the LBB Po negative (-) group. The perioperative electrocardiographic and echocardiography parameters related to cardiac synchrony were analyzed.
resultsThere were 42 (67.74%) patients in the LBB Po (+) group and 20 patients in the LBB Po (-) group. Paced QRS duration (113.50 ± 17.65 ms vs. 123.40 ± 13.18 ms, P = 0.031) and stimulus left ventricular activation time (71.76 ± 3.53 ms vs. 74.45 ± 3.12 ms, P = 0.005) were shorter in the LBB Po (+) group than in the LBB Po (-) group. No significant differences in the LV mechanical synchrony (Ts-SD-12, 36.55 ± 19.76 vs. 39.95 ± 16.04, P = 0.505; PSD, 51.14 ± 17.69 vs. 45.65 ± 10.55, P = 0.205) between the two groups. There was not statistically difference in ventricular lead parameters measured intraoperative between the two groups. Compared with the LBB Po (-) group, the LBB Po (+) group showed a dramatically higher total procedure duration time (93.52 ± 9.18 min vs. 86.25 ± 10.54 min, p = 0.007) and fluoroscopy time for ventricle lead implantation (18.95 ± 3.43 min vs. 14.00 ± 3.16 min, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe appearance of LBB Po may suggest better electrical synchrony during LBBP, but similar in LV mechanical synchrony. However, the total operation duration and fluoroscopy time of ventricular lead implantation in the LBB Po (+) group were longer. Therefore, it may be unnecessary to deliberately recognize the LBB Po when it is difficult to detect LBB Po and meet the LBBP criterion.
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.