ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Efficacy and safety of left bundle branch pacing compared with left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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.
- Improved outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to left ventricular septal pacing in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Conduction System Pacing Improved Cardiac Functions, Myocardial Work and Functional Capacity in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Right Bundle Branch Block.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although numerous studies have compared the efficacy and safety of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular (LV) septal pacing (LVSP), the results remain inconclusive. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of LBBP with that of LVSP. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Europe PMC, and ScienceDirect to identify studies comparing procedural duration, complications, electrophysiological and echocardiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP. Results: A total of 22 cohort studies, involving 1360 LBBP and 1186 LVSP procedures, were included. The paced QRS duration (mean difference [MD] = -9.65 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.35 to -5.96; I Conclusion: In patients with reduced LVEF and wide QRS duration, LBBP demonstrates superior efficacy compared with LVSP. In contrast, in patients with preserved LVEF and narrow QRS duration, the efficacy of LBBP and LVSP is similar. Both groups exhibit comparable safety profiles and procedural efficiency.
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.