SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Leadless ultrasound-based LV endocardial pacing for CRT: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the study was to appraise and compare cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) employing leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing (LVEP) with an ultrasound transmitter.
methodsThe meta-analysis employed continuous random or fixed effect models to get mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 6 papers with a total of 272 subjects, available between 2014 and 2022, were included in this meta-analysis from a search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, OVID, and Embase databases.
resultsFollow-up New York Heart Association had a significantly lower mean reduction in New York Heart Association functional class (MD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.68 - -0.19, p < 0.001) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 77%) compared to baseline New York Heart Association in subjects with dyssynchronous heart failure. Also, follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction had a significantly higher mean increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (MD, 5.65; 95% CI, 3.99–7.31, p < 0.001) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 3%) compared to baseline left ventricular ejection fraction in subjects with dyssynchronous heart failure.
conclusionsLeadless LVEP works well for CRT, so it can be used as a second-line treatment for people who can’t get normal CRT or it hasn’t worked for them. As the safety profile gets better, more people will be able to get this medicine for these patients. However, given that most of the studies comprised a small sample size of all the selected studies and a pre-post design, attention should be given to their values.
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.