ArticleHeart rhythm2023
Outcomes of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: A multicenter experience.
Article in Heart rhythm, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and electrical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing in atrioventricular block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Longitudinal comparison of dyssynchrony correction and 'strain' improvement by conduction system pacing: LEVEL-AT trial secondary findings.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2024Trial
- Differential Time Course of LVEF Recovery Between Conduction System Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Optimal pace timing for left bundle branch area pacing with or without an additional LV lead: results from the CSPOT study.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 · 2026Article
- Conduction system pacing as a rescue strategy for unsuccessful cardiac resynchronisation therapy implantation.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- JCS/JHRS 2024 Guideline Focused Update on Management of Cardiac Arrhythmias.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Physiological Versus Conventional Pacing.Biomedicines · 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
- Left ventricular ejection fraction is a determinant of cardiac performance after long-term conduction system pacing in patients with left bundle branch block?BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Sex-related similarities and differences in responses to heart failure therapies.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2024Review
- Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2024Review
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy through left bundle branch pacing in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava.HeartRhythm case reports · 2024Article
- Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- Ultra-High-Frequency ECG in Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: From Technical Concept to Clinical Application.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Cardiac magnetic resonance-derived myocardial scar is associated with echocardiographic response and clinical prognosis of left bundle branch area pacing for 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 · 2023Article
- Left bundle branch area pacing vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 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
16 authors at 12 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether conduction system pacing (CSP) is an alternative option for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure remains an area of active investigation.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CSP compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP).
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients who fulfilled CRT indications and received CSP. Patients with CSP were matched using propensity score matching and compared in a 1:1 ratio to patients who received BiVP. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Response to CRT was defined as an absolute increase of ≥5% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months post-CRT.
resultsA total of 238 patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 ± 12.5 years, and 66 (27.7%) were female. Sixty-nine patients (29%) had His-bundle pacing, 50 (21%) had left bundle branch area pacing, and 119 (50%) had BiVP. Mean follow-up duration in the CSP and BiVP groups was 269 ± 202 days and 304 ± 262 days, respectively (P = .293). The proportion of CRT responders was greater in the CSP group than in the BiVP group (74% vs 60%, respectively; P = .042). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to first heart failure hospitalization (log-rank P = .78) and overall survival (log-rank P = .68) between the CSP and BiVP groups.
conclusionIn patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, CSP resulted in greater improvement in LVEF compared to BiVP. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these outcomes and further investigate the different options available for CSP.
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.