SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2024
Stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence and Predictors of Acute Tricuspid Regurgitation Worsening After Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Cardiac lead perforation: Mechanisms, detection, and therapeutic approaches.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Assessing the Learning Curve in Conduction System Pacing Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Continuous Pacing and Recording Technique: A Real-Time Feedback Approach for Left Bundle Branch Pacing.CJC open · 2025Review
- Outcomes of stylet-driven leads compared to lumenless leads for left bundle branch are pacing: systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Riding the Highs and Lows of the Conduction System Pacing Wave-Our Experience.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Complications with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: The Flip Side of the Coin.Heart international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing method for treating left ventricular dyssynchrony. LBBAP is often delivered using lumenless leads (LLL). However, recent studies have also reported the use of style-driven leads (SDL). This study is the first systematic review comparing the outcomes of LBBAP with SDL vs. LLL.
methodsThe review and meta-analysis included all available comparative studies published on Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Scopus up to 6th March 2024.
resultsEight observational studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis showed that success rates of LBBAP performed with LLL and SDL were comparable (OR: 1.72 95% CI: 0.94, 3.17 I
conclusionLimited evidence from observational studies with inherent selection bias shows that success rates for LBBAP may not differ between SDL and LLL. While implantation of SDL may be significantly faster, it carries a higher risk of lead dislodgement. Both SDL and LLL are associated with comparable pacing characteristics except for reduced pacing impedance with SDL.
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.