ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2025
[Comment on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Consensus Statement on the indication for conduction system pacing].
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) updates expert opinions on conduction system pacing (CSP). It does not represent a focused update of the ESC pacemaker guidelines of 2021 since that would require the publication of new results of randomized trials. But an official statement became necessary because at the time of preparing the ESC guidelines on pacing and cardiac resynchronization, only very limited data on left bundle branch pacing were available rendering this form of pacing almost completely ignored in the recommendations. Second, daily implantation practice has changed substantially worldwide since the advent of CSP. Third, basically all international heart rhythm societies apart from the ESC have published new guidelines on the use CSP in 2023 which differ significantly from the European recommendations. The Clinical Consensus Statement on CSP of the ESC differs from the 2021 ESC guidelines only in nuances since ESC statutes do not allow that an ESC expert opinion paper substantially contradict current ESC guidelines. However, it is important for daily practice that CSP be recommended as a potential alternative to right ventricular pacing in patients with good left ventricular function or rare ventricular pacing is expected. Similarly, CSP is recommended as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in reduced left ventricular function, in context with ablation of the atrioventricular node, in heart failure with wide QRS complex and for upgrading in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Finally, CSP is recommended in nonresponders to BiVP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40982017What 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.