ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Mid- to long-term mechanical performance of left bundle branch area pacing: a comprehensive echocardiographic comparison of capture modalities.
Article in 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, 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.
- Advanced Cardiac Imaging for Risk Prediction of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy: A Narrative Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Left bundle branch pacing is a superior pacing strategy compared to left ventricular septal pacing: insights from the pooled clinical evidence.Frontiers in physiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) electrical performance is well documented. Nevertheless, the long-term mechanical implications, and differences between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), remain unclear. This study assessed mechanical performance of LBBAP in a mid- to long-term post-implantation setting and compared capture types. METHODS AND
resultsIn this prospective, single-centre study, 88 patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and successful LBBAP underwent paired echocardiography during intrinsic and paced rhythm (median 18 months post-implant). Two-dimensional, speckle-tracking and myocardial work (MW) indices were analysed. Adjusted linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures compared LBBAP vs. intrinsic rhythm and LBBP vs. LVSP differences. Independent predictors of changes in MW indices were sought with multivariate regression. Left bundle branch area pacing showed lower left ventricular volumes than intrinsic rhythm and a decrease in global longitudinal strain (16.2% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.040). Global constructive work (2232.8 vs. 2028.8 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and global wasted work (266.2 vs. 219.1 mmHg%, P = 0.003) were higher during pacing, without differences in global work index (1607.8 vs. 1536.7 mmHg%, P = 0.171) or global work efficiency (GWE) (88.3% vs. 89.3%, P = 0.092). Between LBBP (n = 63) and LVSP (n = 25), no statistically significant differences were found in any parameter after covariate adjustment (all P > 0.28). In multivariate analysis, LVSP independently predicted modest GWE decrease.
conclusionIn patients with preserved LVEF, LBBAP maintains global mechanical performance comparable to intrinsic rhythm while increasing constructive and wasted work. Mechanical performance is largely similar between LBBP and LVSP, supporting the physiological value of LBBAP regardless of capture type.
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.