ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
The efficacy and safety of left bundle branch pacing combined with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of elderly coronary heart disease with chronic heart failure.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is the best alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study compares the efficacy and safety of LBBP combined with sacubitril/valsartan and LBBP combined with enalapril in treating elderly coronary heart disease (CHD) patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Methodology: This retrospective observational study included clinical records of elderly CHD patients with CHF who received LBBP treatment at The Affiliated Hospital of Northwest University from January 2022 to August 2024. Based on the postoperative treatment regimen, patients were divided into the LBBP & sacubitril/valsartan and the LBBP & enalapril groups. Levels of left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDd), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), QRS duration, N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide precursor (NT proBNP), soluble growth stimulating gene 2 protein (sSt2), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between two groups before and after treatment. Results: A total of 111 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 53 patients comprised the LBBP & sacubitril/valsartan group and 58 patients comprised the LBBP & enalapril group. After treatment, levels of LVEDd, LVEF, NT proBNP, sSt2 and MMP-9 in the LBBP & sacubitril/valsartan group were significantly improved compared to those in the LBBP & enalapril group (all P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of adverse events between the two groups (both P>0.05). Conclusions: LBBP combined with sacubitril/valsartan is more effective in treating elderly CHD with CHF than LBBP combined with enalapril.
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.