ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2023
Cardiac Resynchronisation with Conduction System Pacing.
Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with and without interventricular septal hypertrophy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Pooled it
- Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Deterioration of Cardiac Function Complicated by Ventricular Tachycardia After the Implantation of an Artificial Cardiac Pacemaker and Upgrading to CRT-D: One Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Left bundle branch area pacing in a case of Steinert's disease.HeartRhythm case reports · 2025Article
- Conduction System Pacing for CRT: A Physiological Alternative.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2025Review
- Current Advance, Challenges and Future Perspectives of Conduction System Pacing.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Decision Making and Technical Approaches in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Procedures: A Step by Step Critical Appraisal of Literature.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Review of Atrioventricular Node Ablation Combined with Permanent His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- British Heart Rhythm Society Standards for Implantation and Follow-up of Cardiac Rhythm Management Devices in Adults: January 2024 Update.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To date, biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the standard pacing modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. However, it is non-physiological, with the activation spreading between the left ventricular epicardium and right ventricular endocardium. Up to one-third of patients with heart failure who are eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy do not derive benefit from BiVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, has emerged as an alternative to BiVP for cardiac resynchronisation. There is mounting evidence supporting the benefits of CSP in achieving synchronous ventricular activation and repolarisation. The aim of this review is to summarise the current options and outcomes of CSP when used for cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure.
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.