ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2025
Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing Therapy Guided by 3D Mapping for Conventional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Non-Response or Face Challenges.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, procedural complications, and long-term outcomes of left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing lead implantation at the latest activation site of the LV. This procedure is guided by three-dimensional (3D) mapping and performed via transseptal puncture, and targets heart failure (HF) patients who either do not respond to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or face challenges in lead implantation. Methods and results: A retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed on 11 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy who were treated with LV endocardial pacing. Compared to conventional CRT, this procedure required longer operation and fluoroscopy times and higher radiation dose. Clinical improvements, as evidenced by at least one New York Heart Association class improvement, were achieved in 63.6% of the patients, with an average decrease in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score of 33.8 ± 2.2 points (p < 0.05). However, complications and adverse events were noted in 3 patients (27.3%) one month postoperatively, including pocket hematomas in 3 patients (27.3%), a pocket infection in 1 patient (9.1%), and a thromboembolic event in 1 patient (9.1%). In addition, 3 patients (27.3%) had worsening HF after implantation. The estimated mortality rates at 1, 3, and 5 years post-implantation were 9.1%, 18.2%, and 27.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Implanting the LV endocardial pacing lead at the latest activation site under 3D mapping guidance via transseptal puncture offers a viable alternative for patients eligible for CRT who face challenges with LV epicardial lead implantation due to anatomical issues or CRT non-response. However, this procedure is associated with a relatively high incidence of complications, requires careful patient selection, and may necessitate lifelong anticoagulation after implantation.
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.