ArticleIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal
Left bundle fascicular versus left bundle trunk pacing: A comparison of their electrical synchrony parameters.
Article in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ventricular lead positioning within the left conduction system in permanent cardiac pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Kinetics and Disappearance of QRS Transition in Patients Undergoing Left Bundle Branch Pacing - A Novel Method for Classifying Microdislodgement.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Left conduction system pacing - An Ocean of opportunity.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVariation in human left bundle branch (LBB) anatomy has a significant effect on the sequence of left ventricular depolarization. However, little is known regarding the electrophysiological characteristics of pacing different LBB fascicles.
objectiveWe aimed to analyse the different electrocardiographic characteristics of LBB pacing (LBBP) attending to the site of pacing at the LBB system.
methodsIn 200 consecutive patients with confirmed LBBP, we distinguished left bundle trunk capture (LBTP) from any LB fascicular pacing (LBFP) based on the presence of LB potentials and paced QRS morphologies. We compared them regarding procedure, LBBP criteria and electrical synchrony parameters.
resultsOne hundred and seventy-three patients with LBFP were compared to 25 patients with LBTP. Left septal and posterior fascicles were significantly more prevalent than left anterior in LBFP (46.8 %, 41.0 % and 12.2 % respectively). QRS transition criteria (80.0 % vs 61.8 %; p = 0.077), selective LBBP (40.0 vs 21.5 %; p = 0.101), paced QRS width (110.3 ± 16.8 ms vs 115.4 ± 14.9 ms; p = 0.117), V6-RWPT (79.2 ± 10.7 ms vs 75.3 ± 9.7 ms; p = 0.068) and interpeak interval (42.5 ± 19.1 ms vs 45.7 ± 12.9 ms; p = 0.282) were not significantly different between LBTP and LBFP. All short-term complications occurred in LBFP, mainly driven by septal perforations (n = 23), without any difference in the pacing parameters. Among the LBFP subgroups, only aVL-RWPT was longer when the posterior fascicle was paced.
conclusionsLBFP is much more prevalent than LBTP in unselected consecutive patients with LBBP. LBFP seems more feasible, and as good as LBTP in terms of electrical synchrony and pacing safety.
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.