ArticleCardiovascular drugs and therapy2024
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Morbidity and Mortality.
Article in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Left bundle branch area pacing vs. biventricular pacing significantly improves clinical outcomes and cardiac remodeling in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure Requiring Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- METTL3: a multifunctional regulator in diseases.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2025Review
- European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical consensus statement on indications for conduction system pacing, with special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC and endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.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
- Review
- Left bundle branch area pacing vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- m6A 'writer' KIAA1429 regulates the proliferation and migration of endothelial cells in atherosclerosis.Molecular biotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the morbidity and mortality associated with LBBAP versus BVP in patients undergoing CRT implantation.
methodsConsecutive patients who received CRT from two high-volume implantation centers were retrospectively recruited. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death.
resultsA total of 491 patients receiving CRT (154 via LBBAP and 337 via BVP) were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. The primary endpoint was reached by 21 (13.6%) patients in the LBBAP group, as compared with 74 (22.0%) patients in the BVP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.14, P = 0.15]. There were 10 (6.5%) deaths in the LBBAP group, as compared with 31 (9.2%) in the BVP group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.86, P = 0.79). No significant difference was observed in the risk of either the primary or secondary endpoint between LBBAP and BVP after multivariate Cox regression (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23, P = 0.24, and HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.67, P = 0.51, respectively) or propensity score matching (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.29-1.65, P = 0.40, respectively).
conclusionLBBAP was associated with a comparable effect on morbidity and mortality relative to BVP in patients with indications for CRT.
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.