ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Long-term efficacy of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure complicated with left bundle branch block.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis considering randomized controlled trials and observational studies.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 · 2026Pooled it
- Left bundle branch area pacing vs. biventricular pacing significantly improves clinical outcomes and cardiac remodeling in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator with left bundle branch pacing in a patient with mirror-image dextrocardia: a case report.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can physiologically correct complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB), and has become the best alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Objective: To compare the efficacy of LBBP and BiVP in patients with heart failure (HF) complicated with CLBBB. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study. Patients with HF complicated with CLBBB who underwent successful cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in Wuhan Asian Heart Hospital from June 2018 to June 2023 were enrolled and divided into LBBP group and BiVP group according to the pacing method. The primary endpoints were the absolute increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and echocardiographic response rate. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), NT-proBNP, paced QRS duration, pacing threshold, and procedural duration. Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study, including 60 patients in LBBP group and 60 patients in BiVP group. The median follow-up time was 37 ± 19 months. Compared with BiVP group, LBBP group had a more significant increase in absolute LVEF (ΔLVEF) (14.8 ± 9.9% vs. 10.7 ± 9.0%, Conclusion: In nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients with HF combined with CLBBB and LVEF ≤ 35%, LBBP is better than BiVP.
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.