ArticlePloS one2022
Acute echocardiographic and electrocardiographic effects of triggered left ventricular pacing.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an essential pillar in the therapy of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) presenting with broad left bundle branch block (LBBB) or pacemaker dependency. To achieve beneficial effects, CRT requires high bi-ventricular (BiV) pacing rates. Therefore, device-manufacturers designed pacing algorithms which maintain high BiV pacing rates by a left ventricular (LV) pacing stimulus immediately following a right ventricular sensed beat. However, data on clinical impact of these algorithms are sparse. We studied 17 patients implanted with a CRT device providing triggered left ventricular pacing (tLVp) in case of atrioventricular nodal conduction. Assessment of LV dyssynchrony was performed using echocardiographic and electrocardiographic examination while CRT-devices were set to three different settings: 1. Optimized bi-ventricular-stimulation (BiV); 2. Physiological AV nodal conduction (tLVp-off); 3. Physiological AV nodal conduction and tLVp-algorithm turned on (tLVp-on). QRS duration increased when the CRT-device was set to tLVp-off compared to BiV-Stim, while QRS duration was comparable to BiV-Stim with the tLVp-on setting. Echocardiographic analysis revealed higher dyssynchrony during tLVp-off compared to BiV-Stim. TLVp-on did not improve LV dyssynchrony compared to tLVp-off. QRS duration significantly decreased using tLVp-algorithms compared to physiological AV nodal conduction. However, echocardiographic examination could not show functional benefit from tLVp-algorithms, suggesting that these algorithms are inferior to regular biventricular pacing regarding cardiac resynchronization. Therefore, medical treatment and ablation procedures should be preferred, when biventricular pacing rates have to be increased. TLVp-algorithms can be used in addition to these treatment options.
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.