ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Evaluating electrical stability in left bundle branch area pacing for bradycardia patients at follow-up.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can we rely on remote electrogram analysis to monitor long-term conduction system capture in left bundle branch area pacing?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 · 2026Article
- Impact of a Dual-Lead Technique on Procedural Success of Left Bundle Branch Pacing.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Left bundle branch pacing is a superior pacing strategy compared to left ventricular septal pacing: insights from the pooled clinical evidence.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physiologic pacing is safe and feasible, but whether electrical synchrony persists at follow-up in patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is unknown. Objective: To determine performance of electrical synchrony in LBBAP patients at follow-up. Methods: Consecutive patients with successful LBBAP for bradycardia pacing indication and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were selected. At follow-up, a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was recorded along with echocardiography for myocardial work analysis. V6-R wave peak time (RWPT), V1-RWTP, and QRS duration were compared. Results: One hundred forty-nine patients were studied. After 18.2 ± 7.3 months, V6-RWTP decreased from 74.4 ± 8.9 milliseconds to 71.5 ± 10.6 milliseconds ( Conclusions: In patients undergoing LBBAP for bradycardia pacing, electrical synchrony remained stable over time, suggesting that LBBAP is a reliable and durable method for physiologic pacing.
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.