ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Myocardial work parameters in left bundle branch area pacing versus other pacing techniques: a systematic review and aggregate comparative analysis.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Takotsubo syndrome complicated by dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction after left bundle branch area pacing.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- Conduction System Pacing Improved Cardiac Functions, Myocardial Work and Functional Capacity in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Right Bundle Branch Block.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Mid- to long-term mechanical performance of left bundle branch area pacing: a comprehensive echocardiographic comparison of capture modalities.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac conduction disease often necessitates permanent pacemaker implantation. While right ventricular pacing (RVP) effectively treats bradycardia, it may lead to adverse cardiac remodeling and heart failure. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative, potentially preserving myocardial function. Non-invasive myocardial work (MW) assessment provides valuable insights into left ventricular systolic function, energetics, and efficiency. This study systematically reviewed and analyzed MW parameters, comparing LBBAP to RVP and His bundle pacing (HBP). A meta-analysis of 241 patients across five studies examined four MW parameters-Global Work Index (GWI), Global Constructive Work (GCW), Global Wasted Work (GWW), and Global Work Efficiency (GWE)-at baseline, post-implantation, and last follow-up (median: 180 days, IQR: 7-360 days). At baseline, MW parameters were similar between LBBAP and RVP. Post-implantation, LBBAP preserved MW more effectively, showing significantly higher GWI than RVP (2250.0 ± 400.0 vs. 1600.0 ± 300.0 mmHg%, p = 0.027), a difference that remained significant at follow-up (p = 0.035). GWE was also significantly higher at follow-up (p = 0.011), while GCW and GWW showed no significant differences. MW parameters did not differ significantly between LBBAP and HBP (all p-values >0.05). These findings suggest that LBBAP provides superior MW preservation compared to RVP, with significant benefits in GWI and GWE, while demonstrating comparable performance to HBP.
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.