ArticleHeart and vessels2025
A long-term clinical comparative study of left bundle branch pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2025. 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.
- The Functional and Imaging Implications of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Biomolecules · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing technique characterized by stable pacing parameters and a narrower QRS duration. This study aims to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of biventricular pacing (BIVP) and LBBP in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 35 patients with chronic HFrEF accompanied by CLBBB treated at our center from April 2018 to October 2022. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical technique: the LBBP group and the BIVP group. Postoperative follow-up data were collected, including pacing parameters, QRS duration, echocardiographic indices (left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mitral and tricuspid regurgitation), NT-proBNP levels, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. n addition, postoperative complications, heart failure readmission rates, and mortality rates were observed. 35 patients were recruited, 18 for LBBP and 17 for BIVP. The LBBP group demonstrated significantly lower pacing thresholds and impedance at 12 months post-surgery compared to the BIVP group (p < 0.05). The QRS duration in the LBBP group was significantly narrower than that in the BIVP group at 6, 12, and 24 months (p < 0.05). At 24 months post-surgery, LVEDD and LVESD were significantly lower in the LBBP group than those in the BIVP group (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between groups in response rates, tricuspid and mitral regurgitation, NYHA class, NT-proBNP levels, all-cause mortality, or heart failure rehospitalization rates (p > 0.05). LBBP may be a relatively safe and effective resynchronization therapy, serving as a complementary approach to BIVP for patients with HFrEF and CLBBB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39751868What 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.