Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41541719›Full record

ArticleHeart rhythm O22025

Long-term outcomes of upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with left bundle branch block or right ventricular pacing.

Yoshitake Oshima, Nobuhiko Ueda, Kohei Ishibashi, Toshihiro Nakamura, Satoshi Oka, Akinori Wakamiya, Kenzaburo Nakajima, Tsukasa Kamakura, Mitsuru Wada, Yuko Inoue and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Yoshitake OshimaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Nobuhiko UedaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Kohei IshibashiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Toshihiro NakamuraDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Satoshi OkaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Akinori WakamiyaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Kenzaburo NakajimaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Tsukasa KamakuraDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Mitsuru WadaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Yuko InoueDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Koji MiyamotoDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Satoshi NagaseDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Takeshi AibaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Kengo KusanoDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Data comparing outcomes between cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right ventricular (RV) pacing and de novo CRT in LBBB are limited. Objective: To evaluate long-term outcomes of CRT upgrade in patients with LBBB or RV pacing compared with de novo CRT in LBBB. Methods: We analyzed 395 consecutive patients who received CRT, classified into 3 groups: CRT upgrade for LBBB or RV pacing (Upgrade group, n = 111), de novo CRT for LBBB (LBBB group, n = 84), and CRT for non-LBBB (non-LBBB group, n = 200). The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary end point was CRT response, defined as an improvement of ≥15% in left ventricular end-systolic volume. Results: During the follow-up of 778 days, the risk of primary end point was higher in the Upgrade group than the LBBB group (log-rank, Conclusion: CRT upgrade for LBBB or RV pacing offers less prognostic benefit than de novo CRT for LBBB.

Indexed as

Cardiac resynchronization therapyLeft atrial diameterLeft bundle branch blockPacing-induced cardiomyopathyUpgrade

Identifiers

PMID41541719
PMCPMC12800803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.