ArticleEuropean heart journal2026
Left bundle branch vs biventricular pacing: mechanistic insights from a canine model.
Article in European heart journal, 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.
- Electrophysiological and histological comparisons of left bundle branch pacing vs. left ventricular septal pacing in canine self-controlled models.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 · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy is emerging as an alternative pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in dyssynchronous heart failure (DHF). This study aimed to explore the differences in treatment effects between the two pacing modalities using electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and molecular measurements.
methodsAdult canines underwent left bundle branch ablation, then either followed by 6 weeks of atrial tachypacing (DHF group, n = 8), or 3 weeks of atrial tachypacing followed by another 3 weeks of BiVP (n = 8) or LBBP (n = 8) tachypacing. Non-intervened canines constituted the control group (n = 7). Electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and molecular features were compared between BiVP-treated and LBBP-treated DHF canines.
resultsBiVP- and LBBP-treated canines achieved equivalent reduction in QRS duration (32 ± 6 ms vs 35 ± 5 ms, P = .276). Both BiVP and LBBP increased left ventricular ejection fraction (9 ± 5% and 10 ± 4%, respectively; P = .390) while LBBP significantly outperformed BiVP in improving left ventricular global longitudinal strain (-3.7 ± 1.2% vs -2.3 ± 1.0%, P = .019). Both BiVP and LBBP reversed biomarkers of heart failure, while LBBP more significantly modulated cytoskeleton proteins, TGF-β signalling pathways and SERCA2a expression. Moreover, LBBP contributed to a more comprehensive improvement in myocardial energy metabolism compared to BiVP.
conclusionsThis study in a DHF animal model indicates that LBBP results in electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and molecular recovery at least as good as that during BiVP. The superiority of LBBP is especially reflected in more pronounced normalization of cardiac cytoskeleton, calcium handling and energy metabolism.
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.