SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Comparative effects of biventricular and right ventricular pacing on clinical outcomes in atrioventricular block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correction: Comparative effects of biventricular and right ventricular pacing on clinical outcomes in atrioventricular block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRight ventricular (RV) pacing is the standard treatment for atrioventricular (AV) block but may impair left ventricular (LV) function over time. Biventricular (BiV) pacing offers a physiologic alternative, though prior evidence has been mixed, particularly after the BioPace trial.
methodsPubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched through May 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BiV and RV pacing in AV block. Thirteen RCTs (n = 3,685) met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes included heart failure (HF) hospitalization, all-cause mortality, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), cardiovascular (CV) death, and LVEF (%) at follow-up.
resultsBiV pacing significantly reduced HF hospitalizations (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-0.98; p = 0.03) and better preserved LVEF (mean difference = 6.17%, 95% CI 3.85-8.49; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.08; p = 0.21) or CV death (RR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.21; p = 0.70). RV pacing showed a borderline improvement in 6MWD (mean difference = 10.3 m, 95% CI - 0.1 to 20.7; p = 0.05).
conclusionIn patients with AV block and high pacing burden, BiV pacing reduced HF hospitalizations and better preserved systolic function compared with RV pacing. These findings support a burden-based pacing strategy, while CRT use should be individualized, considering patient profile and procedural factors. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis was retrospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under ID 1080380. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.