ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2023
His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch pacing on ventricular function in atrial fibrillation patients referred for pacing: a prospective crossover comparison.
Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024Pooled it
- Left ventricular functional outcomes in His vs. left bundle branch area pacing: Is lead distance important in LBBAP implantation?BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Preserves Mechanical Strain and Synchrony Compared to Right Ventricular Apical Pacing in an Acute Paired Preclinical Model.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- 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
- Role of conduction system pacing in ablate and pace strategies for atrial fibrillation.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHis bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) both provide physiologic pacing which maintain left ventricular synchrony. They both improve heart failure (HF) symptoms in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. We aimed to assess the intra-patient comparison of ventricular function and remodeling as well as leads parameters corresponding to two pacing modalities in AF patients referred for pacing in intermediate term.
methodsUncontrolled tachycardia AF patients with both leads implantation successfully were randomized to either modality. Echocardiographic measurements, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, quality-of-life assessments and leads parameters were obtained at baseline and at each 6-month follow up. Left ventricular function including the left ventricular endo-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular (RV) function quantified by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) were all assessed.
resultsConsecutively twenty-eight patients implanted with both HBP and LBBP leads successfully were enrolled (69.1 ± 8.1 years, 53.6% male, LVEF 59.2% ± 13.7%). The LVESV was improved by both pacing modalities in all patients (
conclusionIn this crossover comparison between HBP and LBBP, LBBP was found to have an equivalent effect on LV function and remodeling but better and more stable parameters in AF patients with uncontrolled ventricular rates referred for atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation. HBP could be preferred in patients with reduced TAPSE at baseline rather than LBBP.
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.