ArticleJournal of interventional cardiology2023
Learning Curve Analyses for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing with Conventional Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility and Safety on Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With Standard Stylet-Driven Lead: ACHIEVE-SYNC Multicenter Prospective Observational Cohort Study.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- CUSUM Analysis as a Predictive Tool for the Learning Curve in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With a Stylet-Driven Lead and Conventional Right Ventricular Pacing.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Learning Curve for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Lead Implantation.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025Article
- Adoption of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven lead in a tertiary academic training center: Learning curve and acute procedural outcomes.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Stylet-driven leads versus lumenless pacing leads in patients with left bundle branch area pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Utility of a guiding catheter for conduction system pacing: An early multicenter experience.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- Stylet-driven Leads or Lumenless Leads for Conduction System Pacing.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2024Review
- Predictors of success in left bundle branch area pacing with stylet-driven pacing leads: a multicenter investigation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physiological conduction system pacing has attracted attention to overcome the dyssynchrony problems of conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), which complements short combing of His bundle pacing (HBP), has emerged and has proven its efficiency and safety. In addition, initial experiences of LBBAP were mainly using lumen-less pacing lead, and the feasibility of stylet-driven pacing lead (SDL) was also established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the learning curve for LBBAP using SDL. Methods: The study enrolled 265 patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP performed by operators without previous LBBAP experience at Yonsei University Severance Hospital in Korea between December 2020 and October 2021. LBBAP was performed using SDL with an extendable helix. The learning curve was evaluated by analyzing fluoroscopy and procedure times. And, before and after reaching the learning curve, we evaluated how much the time required for the LBBAP differed from the time required for the RVP. Results: LBBAP was successful in 50 of 50 (100.0%) patients left bundle branch pacing was successful in 49 of 50 (98.0%). In 50 patients who underwent LBBAP, mean fluoroscopy and procedural times were 15.1 ± 13.5 minutes and 59.9 ± 24.8 minutes, respectively. The plateau of fluoroscopy time reached in the 25th case and the plateau of procedure time reached in the 24th case. Conclusion: During the initial experience with LBBAP, fluoroscopy and procedural times improved with increasing operator experience. For operators who were experienced in cardiac pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve was over the first 24-25 cases. It is shorter than the previously reported learning curves of HBP.
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.