ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2025
Left bundle branch pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in the long-term: a prospective, non-randomized, cohort study.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis considering randomized controlled trials and observational studies.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 · 2026Pooled it
- Left Bundle-Branch Capture Not Confirmed During the Implant: What Is the Next Best Step?Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe classical instrumental treatment for heart failure(HF) is biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT); however, BiV-CRT exhibits a non-response rate as high as 30%. This study aimed to compare the feasibility and effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy(CRT) via left bundle branch pacing(LBBP-CRT) and BiV-CRT in HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS AND
resultsThis prospective, nonrandomized cohort study enrolled 140 patients who underwent CRT. Patients were divided into two groups according to pacing modality: LBBP-CRT or BiV-CRT, with a 1-year pre-planned follow-up. The success rates were 94.3% (66/70) for LBBP-CRT and 88.6% (62/70) for BiV-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, LBBP-CRT patients had greater pacing QRS duration(QRSd) reduction [Treatment effect (95%CI): -19.15 (-28.72, -9.59)], higher Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement [Treatment effect (95%CI): 2.89 (0.08, 5.71)] and better pacing parameters performance during 1-year follow-up. In a mean follow-up duration of 21.6 months, LBBP-CRT resulted in a lower risk of HF re-hospitalization [HR (95%CI): 0.250 (0.067–0.926)], while all-cause mortality was comparable between the two pacing groups.
conclusionsLBBP-CRT demonstrated better electrical synchronization, higher echocardiographic response, and lower risk of HF re-hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction(HFrEF) and LBBB. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2000028726, Registration date: 2020-01-01.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40748508What 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.