ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Left ventricular ejection fraction is a determinant of cardiac performance after long-term conduction system pacing in patients with left bundle branch block?
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. 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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to explore the feasibility, safety, and clinical performance of conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and varying left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values.
methodsWe consecutively enrolled all patients with LVEF ≤ 35% and LBBB who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent CSP from January 2018 to December 2021. We compared the differences in improvements in cardiac performance after CSP between patients with LVEF < 25% and those with LVEF between 25 to 35%.
resultsCSP was successfully deployed in 74 out of 80 patients (92.50%), including 32 patients with LVEF < 25% and 42 patients with LVEF 25%-35%. The CSP response rates were similar between the two groups (71.90% vs. 90.50%, P = 0.076), as were the super-response rates (62.50% vs. 78.60%, P = 0.129) and the rates of left ventricular complete reverse remodeling (21.90% vs. 42.90%, P = 0.059) after a follow-up period of 40.81 ± 11.93 months. Significant improvements were observed in LVEF (20.50 ± 2.75% vs. 37.78 ± 13.04%, P < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (69.56 ± 6.77 mm vs. 59.41 ± 11.00 mm, P < 0.001), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (224.81 ± 50.65 ml vs. 134.00 ± 83.35 ml, P < 0.001), NYHA class (3.59 ± 0.48 vs. 1.78 ± 0.66, P < 0.001), and QRS duration (168.75 ± 21.52 ms vs. 117.81 ± 17.09 ms, P < 0.001) in patients with LVEF < 25%. Despite these improvements, the final LVEF (37.78 ± 13.04 vs. 46.19 ± 9.47, P = 0.003) and final LVESV (134.00 ± 83.35 vs. 70.89 ± 38.89, P = 0.001) after CSP were inferior in patients with LVEF < 25%, and the rate of rehospitalization for heart failure was higher in this group (46.90% vs. 21.40%, P = 0.021) compared to those with LVEF between 25 to 35%.
conclusionsCSP is feasible and safe for improving clinical outcomes in patients with LVEF < 25%. Timely CSP intervention in patients with LBBB and HF may be beneficial for cardiac performance.
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.