ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Comparison of electrocardiogram parameters and echocardiographic response between distinct left bundle branch area pacing modes in heart failure patients.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has become an alternative method for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Various modes of LBBAP have been determined, including left bundle trunk pacing (LBTP), left anterior branch pacing (LAFP) and left posterior branch pacing (LPFP). However, whether the outcomes of various pacing modes differ in heart failure (HF) patients is still unclear. This study aimed to compare the electrophysiological characteristics and echocardiographic response rate among those distinct modes of LBBAP. Methods: HF patients undergoing successful LBBAP were retrospectively included. Distinct modes of pacing were determined based on paced QRS morphology. The fluoroscopic images were collected to compare the lead tip position between the groups. The electrocardiograms (ECG) before and after LBBAP were used to measure the depolarization (QRS duration [QRSd] and the interventricular delay [IVD]), and the repolarization parameters [QTc, TpeakTend(TpTe), and TpTe/QTc]. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) of patients were also recorded. In addition, the lead parameters and certain complications were compared. Results: A total of 64 HF patients were finally included, consisting of 16 (25.0%) patients in the LBTP group, 22 (34.4%) patients in the LAFP group, and 26 (40.6%) patients in the LPFP group. The distribution features of LBBAP lead tips were significantly related to pacing modes: LBTP was more likely to be in zone 4 while LAFP or LPFP was prone to locate in zone 5. After LBBAP, the ventricular ECG parameters were significantly improved, regardless of pacing modes. Besides, the LVEF of the patients was significantly increased ( Conclusion: LPFP was the main pacing mode among HF patients after LBBAP. The paced QRS morphology was significantly related to the position of lead tips. After LBBAP, the ventricular depolarization synchronization and repolarization stability were both significantly improved, regardless of pacing modes. There was no significant difference in the echocardiographic response rate among distinct LBBAP modes.
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.