ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Stylet-driven leads versus lumenless pacing leads in patients with left bundle branch area pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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.
- Riding the Highs and Lows of the Conduction System Pacing Wave-Our Experience.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advancements in lead designs for optimum left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), limited data exist on the performance of stylet-driven leads (SDLs). Objective: This meta-analysis sought to compare the performance and safety of SDLs in comparison with lumenless leads (LLLs) following LBBAP. Methods: Systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Europe PMC, and ScienceDirect for studies that compared the outcomes of SDLs during LBBAP compared with LLLs. Study outcomes included periprocedural parameters, pacing metrics, and complications. Results: A total of 6 studies involving 3991 participants were included. LBBAP procedural success was comparable between SDLs and LLLs (90.2% and 90.5%, respectively). Compared with LLLs, SDLs appeared to result in shortened procedural (-11.50 minutes) and fluoroscopy (-2.56 minutes) times, along with increased capture threshold and reduced lead impedance at implantation. However, paced QRS, R-wave amplitude, capture threshold, and lead impedance remained comparable between both groups during follow-up. The number of lead-implantation attempts was similar between SDLs and LLLs (2.6 ± 1.0 vs 2.2 ± 0.6). Lead dislodgement and lead-related complications (except septal perforation) occurred mostly in the SDL group. No statistical differences were found in life-threatening complications. Conclusion: SDLs demonstrated comparable effectiveness in achieving LBBAP, exhibiting similar success rates, mean attempts for lead placement, and pacing parameters, although they were associated with a higher overall incidence of lead-related complications. The reduced overall procedural and fluoroscopy time may be attributed to the ability of SDLs' different delivery sheath selections in identifying the optimal anatomical site, rather than being lead specific.
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.