Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41698465›Full record

ArticleIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal

Left bundle cardiac resynchronization therapy versus left bundle optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Chinmay Parale, Suresh Kumar Sukumaran, Dinakar Bootla, K E Sivavignesh, Ashish Jain, Sridhar Balaguru, Santhosh Satheesh, Avinash Anantharaj, A Shaheer Ahmed, Raja Selvaraj

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

10 authors.

Chinmay ParaleDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Suresh Kumar SukumaranDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Dinakar BootlaDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
K E SivavigneshDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Ashish JainDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Sridhar BalaguruDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Santhosh SatheeshDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Avinash AnantharajDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
A Shaheer AhmedDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Raja SelvarajDepartment of Cardiology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India. Electronic address: raja.selvaraj@jipmer.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (LB-CRT), addition of a coronary sinus lead i.e. Left bundle optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) might confer additional benefit.

objectivesTo compare echocardiographic and clinical characteristics between LB-CRT and LOT-CRT at a 6 month follow up. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis single center randomized controlled trial included patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% who underwent implantation of an atrial lead, a left bundle lead and a coronary sinus lead. Patients were randomized to LB-CRT or LOT-CRT 48 h after implant and followed-up for 6 months. LVEF, LV end systolic volume (LVESV), NYHA class, 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and response rates were compared between the two pacing modalities.

results26 patients (12 in the LB-CRT group and 14 in the LOT-CRT group) were recruited in the study. The mean QRS duration of the population was 169.8 ± 20.6 ms and the mean LVEF was 21 ± 6.6%. Change in LVEF at 6 months (delta LVEF) in the LB-CRT group (15.7 ± 12.8%) was not significantly different from that in the LOT-CRT group (11.4 ± 14.2%; p = 0.43). Response rate in LB-CRT group (72.7%%), was comparable to that in the LOT-CRT group (71.4%; p = 0.94). LVESV, change in LVESV and 6MWD were also not significantly different between the two modalities.

conclusionsIn patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB, there was no additional benefit with LOT-CRT compared to LB-CRT.

Indexed as

Cardiac resynchronization therapyConduction system pacingEchocardiographyLeft bundle branch area pacingNon-ischemic cardiomyopathy

Identifiers

PMID41698465
PMCPMC13069275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.