Observational studyScientific reports2024
Feasibility, safety and outcomes of conduction system pacing for bradycardia amongst the very elderly.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and Safety of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Nonagenarians: A Single Center Observational Study.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of age (≥ 85 vs < 85 years) on clinical outcomes and pacemaker performance of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP) were examined. Consecutive patients from a prospective, observational, multicenter study with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia were studied. The primary endpoint was a composite of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations, pacing-induced cardiomyopathy requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy or all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were acutely successful CSP, absence of pacing-complications, optimal pacemaker performance defined as pacing thresholds < 2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥ 5 V and absence of complications, threshold stability (no increases of > 1 V) and persistence of His-Purkinje capture on follow-up. Among 984 patients (age 74.1 ± 11.2 years, 41% CSP, 16% ≥ 85 years), CSP was independently associated with reduced hazard of the primary endpoint compared to RVP, regardless of age-group (< 85 years: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.98; ≥ 85 years: AHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94). Among patients with CSP, age did not significantly impact the secondary endpoints of acute CSP success (86% vs 88%), pacing complications (19% vs 11%), optimal pacemaker performance (64% vs 69%), threshold stability (96% vs 96%) and persistent His-Purkinje capture (86% vs 91%) on follow-up (all p > 0.05). CSP improves clinical outcomes in all age-groups, without compromising procedural safety or pacemaker performance in the very elderly.
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.