Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37306315›Full record

ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2023

Comparison of novel ventricular pacing strategies using an electro-mechanical simulation platform.

Roel Meiburg, Jesse H J Rijks, Ahmed S Beela, Edoardo Bressi, Domenico Grieco, Tammo Delhaas, Justin G Lm Luermans, Frits W Prinzen, Kevin Vernooy, Joost Lumens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Controversy: in heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, conduction system pacing can be a valid alternative to biventricular pacing-pro and contra.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 · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Mid- to long-term mechanical performance of left bundle branch area pacing: a comprehensive echocardiographic comparison of capture modalities.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 · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Left ventricular septal pacing combined with left ventricular pacing improves acute electric resynchronization, hemodynamic responses and clinical outcomes: results of SPORT 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 · 2025
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. An in silico guide for ventriculo-ventricular delay programming for left bundle branch-optimized 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 · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Impact of myocardial phenotype on optimal atrioventricular delay settings during biventricular and left bundle branch pacing at rest and during exercise: insights from a virtual patient 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 · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Roel MeiburgDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6688-0915
Jesse H J RijksDepartment of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5136-4830
Ahmed S BeelaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0517-7000
Edoardo BressiDepartment of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8080-6842
Domenico GriecoDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Policlinico Casilino of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3899-3023
Tammo DelhaasDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6897-9700
Justin G Lm LuermansDepartment of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Frits W PrinzenDepartment of Physiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8917-9032
Kevin VernooyDepartment of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8818-5964
Joost LumensDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8129-7384

Funding

Dutch Heart Foundation 2015T082European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmeMarie Sklodowska-Curie 860745Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research 016.176.340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsFocus of pacemaker therapy is shifting from right ventricular (RV) apex pacing (RVAP) and biventricular pacing (BiVP) to conduction system pacing. Direct comparison between the different pacing modalities and their consequences to cardiac pump function is difficult, due to the practical implications and confounding variables. Computational modelling and simulation provide the opportunity to compare electrical, mechanical, and haemodynamic consequences in the same virtual heart. METHODS AND

resultsUsing the same single cardiac geometry, electrical activation maps following the different pacing strategies were calculated using an Eikonal model on a three-dimensional geometry, which were then used as input for a lumped mechanical and haemodynamic model (CircAdapt). We then compared simulated strain, regional myocardial work, and haemodynamic function for each pacing strategy. Selective His-bundle pacing (HBP) best replicated physiological electrical activation and led to the most homogeneous mechanical behaviour. Selective left bundle branch (LBB) pacing led to good left ventricular (LV) function but significantly increased RV load. RV activation times were reduced in non-selective LBB pacing (nsLBBP), reducing RV load but increasing heterogeneity in LV contraction. LV septal pacing led to a slower LV and more heterogeneous LV activation than nsLBBP, while RV activation was similar. BiVP led to a synchronous LV-RV, but resulted in a heterogeneous contraction. RVAP led to the slowest and most heterogeneous contraction. Haemodynamic differences were small compared to differences in local wall behaviour.

conclusionUsing a computational modelling framework, we investigated the mechanical and haemodynamic outcome of the prevailing pacing strategies in hearts with normal electrical and mechanical function. For this class of patients, nsLBBP was the best compromise between LV and RV function if HBP is not possible.

Indexed as

Heart VentriclesVentricular SeptumComputer SimulationHeart Conduction SystemHumansMyocardiumComputational modellingConduction system pacingHaemodynamicsMechanics

Identifiers

PMID37306315
PMCPMC10259067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.