Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36247445›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review.

Kailun Zhu, Linlin Li, Jianghai Liu, Dong Chang, Qiang Li

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Improved outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to left ventricular septal pacing in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. 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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kailun ZhuDepartment of Cardiology, Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Linlin LiDepartment of Cardiology, Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Jianghai LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Dong ChangDepartment of Cardiology, Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Qiang LiDepartment of Cardiology, Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University · CNXiamen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As a novel physiological pacing technique, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve the left ventricular (LV) electrical and mechanical synchronization by directly capturing left bundle branch (LBB). Approximately 60-90% of LBBP were confirmed to have captured LBB during implantation, implying that up to one-third of LBBP is actually left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). LBB capture is critical for distinguishing LBBP from LVSP. Methods and results: A total of 15 articles were included in the analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database till August 2022. Comparisons of paced QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP have not been uniformly concluded, but the stimulus artifact to LV activation time in lead V5 or V6 (Stim-LVAT) was shorter in LBBP than LVSP in all studies. Stim-LVAT was used to determine LBB capture with a sensitivity of 76-95.2% and specificity of 78.8-100%, which varied across patient populations. Conclusion: The output-dependent QRS transition from non-selective LBBP to selective LBBP or LVSP is direct evidence of LBB capture. LBB potential combined with short Stim-LVAT can predict LBB capture better. Personalized criteria rather than a fixed value of Stim-LVAT are necessary to confirm LBB capture in different populations, especially in patients with LBB block or heart failure.

Indexed as

electrocardiogramelectrophysiologyleft bundle branch pacingleft ventricular septal pacingQRS complex

Identifiers

PMID36247445
PMCPMC9562849
OpenAlexW4298142538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.