ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2024
Relationship Between Electrical Parameters and Cardiac Synchrony in Patients Underwent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe study aims to assess cardiac synchrony under different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and evaluate the relationship between different surface or intracardiac electrical parameters and mechanical synchrony.
methodsEighty-two patients with successful LBBAP were recruited. The electrical synchrony, evaluated by paced QRS duration (pQRSD) and Stim-LVAT (stimulus to left ventricular activation time), and mechanical synchrony, evaluated by the standard deviation of the time-to-peak contraction velocity in 12 left ventricular segments (Tsd-12-LV), were compared between groups in patients underwent LBBAP. To investigate the relationship between different electrical parameters with mechanical synchrony under LBBAP, patients were divided into subgroups according to left ventricular activation time (LVAT, < 60, 60-70, and > 70 ms), presence of left bundle branch (LBB) potential (positive, negative), QRS axis (normal, left axis deviation [LAD]), and potential to ventricular interval (PVI, < 20 and > 20 ms). Mechanical synchrony was compared among the subgroups respectively 3 days post LBBAP procedure.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were documented in electrical synchrony, evaluated by pQRSD, and mechanical synchrony, evaluated by Tsd-12-LV among the subgroups divided by the stim-LVAT, LBB potential, PVI duration, or paced QRS axis in the LBBAP group.
conclusionsLBB potential, PVI, or normal paced QRS axis is not the prerequisite for successful LBBAP and optimal cardiac synchrony. Adopting a Stim-LVAT value of less than 75 ms to attain ideal electrical and mechanical synchrony during the LBBAP procedure may be applicable.
trial registrationhttp://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: ChiCTR1800021104.
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.