SynthesisCritical pathways in cardiology2026
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Critical pathways in cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07604727 (AV Nodal Ablation With Conduction System Pacing Versus Cardiac Resynchronization for Symptomatic Heart Failure Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
AV Nodal Ablation With Conduction System Pacing Versus Cardiac Resynchronization for Symptomatic Heart Failure Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The APAF-CSP All-cause Mortality and Quality of Life Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiologically targeted alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the impact of LBBAP versus BiVP on clinical and procedural outcomes in patients undergoing CRT. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Embase was conducted in August 2025 to identify studies comparing LBBAP and BiVP in patients undergoing CRT. Eligible studies included randomized and observational designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included changes in QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, procedural time, and fluoroscopy time. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse-variance random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using I ², and sensitivity was evaluated with leave-one-out analysis. Effect sizes were reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Eighteen studies (17 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial) encompassing 5605 patients (LBBAP = 2428 and BiVP = 3177) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to BiVP, LBBAP was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (9.9% vs. 13.9%; RR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < 0.00001; I ² = 0%) and HF-related hospitalization (RR = 0.51, 95% CI, 0.42-0.62; P < 0.00001; I ² = 42%). LBBAP was also associated with a marked improvement in mean left ventricular ejection fraction (MD = 4.71%, 95% CI, 3.80-5.61; P < 0.00001; I ² = 35%) and substantial narrowing of mean QRS duration (MD = -24.60 ms, 95% CI, -29.49 to -19.70; P < 0.00001; I ² = 94%). Functional status (mean New York Heart Association class) was significantly improved within the LBBAP group (MD = -0.31, 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.09; P = 0.005; I ² = 94%). LBBAP was also associated with significantly shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times (MD = -29.77 minutes and -8.62 minutes, respectively) compared to BiVP. This meta-analysis demonstrates that LBBAP is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations compared to BiVP in patients undergoing CRT. LBBAP also offers procedural advantages and greater improvements in electrical and functional cardiac parameters. Further large-scale randomized trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.