ArticleJournal of cardiology cases2024
Conduction time from left bundle branch pacing to the left ventricular lateral wall in two patients in whom cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker was implanted.
Article in Journal of cardiology cases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been reported, but LBBP may not always improve conduction disturbance in the left ventricle (LV). To evaluate LV electrical conduction delay during LBBP, we measured conduction time from the pacing at left bundle branch to LV lead sensing (LBBP-LV) in two patients in whom left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) was attempted. Case 1 was a 77-year-old female with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and left bundle branch block. The QRS duration during LBBP was 160 ms and the interval between the stimulus artifact and peak of the R wave in lead V6 (Stim-V6RWPT) was 74 ms. LBBP-LV at the LV mid-lateral wall and LV mid-posterolateral wall were 112 ms and 102 ms, respectively. Case 2 was a 75-year-old female with DCM and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay. The QRS duration during LBBP was 156 ms and Stim-V6RWPT was 66 ms. LBBP-LV at the LV mid-anterolateral wall, LV mid-lateral wall, and LV mid-posterolateral wall were 96 ms, 107 ms, and 121 ms, respectively. In conclusion, LBBP-LV at the LV mid-lateral area was relatively long. If LBBP does not improve LV conduction disturbances, LOT-CRT may be more effective. Learning objective: The efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been reported. However, if the conduction time from pacing to the left ventricular (LV) lateral area during LBBP is long, LBBP may not improve LV conduction disturbance, resulting in ineffective CRT. In such cases, more effective CRT would be expected with LV lead implantation at the area of the LV conduction delay during 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.