ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2023
Early Experience of Patients with left Bundle Branch Block Corrected through Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Conventional Right Ventricular Pacing: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has the advantages of narrow QRS duration, rapid peak left ventricular (LV) activation, and LV dyssynchrony correction with a low, stable pacing output. Here we report our experience with patients undergoing LBBAP with a left bundle branch block (LBBB) for clinically indicated pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. We compared the initial follow-up data of these patients and patients undergoing conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Methods: This retrospective study was performed between January 2017 and December 2020 and recruited 19 consecutive patients (mean age: 63 years; 8 women, 11 men) who underwent LBBAP (13 LBBAP only and 6 LBBAP + LV pacing), and 14 consecutive patients (mean age: 75 years; 8 women, 6 men) who underwent RVP. Demographic data, QRS durations, and echocardiographic parameters were compared before and after the procedures. Results: LBBAP substantially shortened the QRS duration and improved LV dyssynchrony echocardiographic parameters. However, RVP was not significantly associated with prolonged QRS duration and worse LV dyssynchronization. LBBAP improved cardiac contractility in selected patients. We did not find adverse effects of LBBAP on patients with preserved systolic function, possibly due to the limited number of patients and follow-up time. However, two of the 11 patients with preserved systolic function at baseline who underwent conventional RVP developed heart failure after implantation. Conclusions: In our experience, LBBAP improves LBBB-related ventricular dyssynchrony. However, LBBAP requires greater skill, and doubts remain about lead extraction. LBBAP may be an option for patients with LBBB when performed by an experienced operator, however further studies are needed to verify our findings.
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.