ArticleHeart rhythm O22024
Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Deep Septal Pacing in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Improved outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to left ventricular septal pacing in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Left Bundle-Branch Capture Not Confirmed During the Implant: What Is the Next Best Step?Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Severe deterioration of left ventricular function after left bundle branch area pacing: A rare case report.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- Left bundle branch pacing is a superior pacing strategy compared to left ventricular septal pacing: insights from the pooled clinical evidence.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Comparison of Valvular and Ventricular Function After Right Ventricular, Leadless, Deep Septal, and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacemakers.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Article
- Left bundle branch pacing in patients with structural heart disease: personalizing 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 · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of left bundle branch pacing compared with left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- 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
- Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with severe interventricular septal hypertrophy: A multicenter study assessing feasibility, safety, and outcomes of lumenless and stylet-driven leads.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical consensus statement on indications for conduction system pacing, with special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC and endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.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 · 2025Article
- Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and electrical dyssynchrony.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Left bundle cardiac resynchronization therapy versus left bundle optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP). Methods: This retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up. Results: A total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. A total of 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (interquartile range 208, 508) days. There was significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (from 35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, Conclusion: In patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared with LBBP.
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.