ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Cost-Utility Analysis of Left Bundle Branch Area Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Multicenter, Prospective, Quasi-Experimental Study.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Left Bundle Branch Area Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Multicenter, Prospective, Quasi-Experimental Study.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
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
introductionCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established treatment for patients with heart failure (HF). Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for CRT. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of LBBAP CRT compared with BVP CRT.
methodsA cost-utility, non-randomized, prospective, multicenter, quasi-experimental study was performed in four referral centers. Patients eligible for CRT were treated with LBBAP or BVP, depending on the participating center. The primary health outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, and the analysis considered the cost of the implant and all procedure-related events over the 12-month follow-up. Clinical outcomes were also evaluated.
resultsSixty-two consecutive patients were included (42 LBBAP CRT and 20 BVP CRT). Clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The incremental cost-utility analysis showed that LBBAP CRT generated an average cost saving of €2391.02 per patient compared with BVP (95% CI -330.28 to 5112.69), while providing an incremental gain of 0.07 QALYs (95% CI -0.03 to 0.16).
conclusionsLBBAP CRT could be an efficient alternative to BVP CRT for cardiac resynchronization with similar clinical and QALY outcomes but potentially significant average cost savings per patient.
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.