Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Left ventricular functional outcomes in His vs. left bundle branch area pacing: Is lead distance important in LBBAP implantation?
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRight ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as a more physiological alternative to preserve ventricular function. However, comparative data between these CSP modalities particularly regarding the influence of lead-to-tricuspid annulus distance (LTTAD) in LBBAP remain limited.
objectiveTo compare LV functional outcomes between HBP and LBBAP, and to assess the impact of LTTAD on LVEF improvement among LBBAP patients.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 51 patients who underwent CSP (28 with HBP and 23 with LBBAP). Echocardiographic parameters, including LVEF and global longitudinal strain (GLS), were measured at baseline and 12 months post-implantation. Subgroup analysis in the LBBAP group evaluated the relationship between LTTAD and LVEF improvement, using a ≥ 5% increase in LVEF as the threshold.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant improvement in LVEF over 12 months, with greater improvement in the LBBAP group (+ 7.69% vs. +3.00%, P = 0.043). GLS improvement was also more pronounced in the LBBAP group (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with LTTAD ≥ 21.5 mm experienced improvements in left ventricular (LV) function that were not inferior compared to those with shorter LTTAD.
conclusionBoth HBP and LBBAP improve LV function, with LBBAP demonstrating more favorable pacing parameters. Distal lead positioning in LBBAP (LTTAD ≥ 21.5 mm) is not associated with deterioration in ventricular synchrony, supporting its broader use in CSP strategies.
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.