ArticleCureus2025
Our Initial Experience of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) With Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads (SDL) in a Tertiary Care Center.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) as a substitute for conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming increasingly popular. Thus, this study was performed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of LBBAP with stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) in a tertiary care center in Eastern India. Materials and methods This single-center, retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Cardiology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (IGIMS), Patna, Bihar, India. The study included data from 20 patients over one year, i.e., from December 2023 to December 2024. The procedure-related characteristics included fluoroscopy exposure duration, doses, and patterns of electrocardiograms (ECG) and intracardiac electrograms (EGM) that were documented during implantation. The Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC), IGIMS, Patna, Bihar, India, has granted ethical approval (approval no. 291/IEC/IGIMS/2025, dated January 9, 2025). Results Implant success was observed in 18 (90%) patients. Significant differences were observed in bundle branch block and pacing indications with p-values <0.001 and 0.002, respectively. It was noted that a highly statistically significant result was obtained when unipolar impedance and bipolar impedance were compared, with a p-value of 0.002. Conclusion Our study found that permanent LBBAP is a viable physiological pacing method with a 90% success rate. Moreover, septal perforation complications were not noted. Among the limitations of the study were the small number of patients, which might affect the efficiency of the results, and the shorter duration of time. Additionally, the study was retrospective; thus, similar records of some parameters were difficult to find.
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.