ReviewBiomedicines2025
Apex vs. Septum Pacing: A Comprehensive Review of Pacemaker Implantation Strategies.
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Advanced Cardiac Imaging for Risk Prediction of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy: A Narrative Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing has historically been the default approach for cardiac pacing; however, it is associated with the development of progressive left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure (HF), particularly in patients with high pacing burdens. While advances in device programming and modern algorithms have sought to mitigate these effects, preserving physiological activation has proven to be more critical than reducing ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) techniques-namely, His-bundle pacing (HBP) and particularly left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)-have emerged as superior alternatives, enabling improved left ventricular function and reduced rates of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Nevertheless, despite the clinical advantages of these procedures over RVA, they face limitations including variable implantation success rates, increased pacing thresholds and lead revision rates, technical challenges, and occasional procedure prolongation. Thus, while CSP approaches represent the future of physiological pacing, RVA pacing continues to provide a necessary and reliable option in the current clinical practice.
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.