ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Clinical indications for conduction system pacing in routine practice: 2025 survey from the Home Monitoring Expert Alliance.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and, in selected patients, to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The 2025 ESC consensus statement outlined potential indications for CSP, real-world adoption remains unclear. We aimed to assess contemporary CSP use in a European country, focusing on clinical indications.
methodsAn online survey of 23 questions was distributed to 101 centers of the Italian Home Monitoring Expert Alliance (HMEA) network. The questionnaire captured CSP use across predefined clinical scenarios based on international recommendations.
resultsNinety-two centers (91% response rate) completed the survey. Almost all (98%) performed at least one CSP procedure in the past year, with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) accounting for 95% of cases. CSP was most frequently adopted in atrioventricular block with anticipated high ventricular pacing burden, where 28–49% of centers used it as first-line therapy depending on ejection fraction. In atrioventricular node ablation, CSP was the preferred approach in 40% of centers with preserved/mid-range LVEF and 27% with reduced LVEF. Use in sinus node dysfunction was limited (first-line in 5%). In heart failure, CSP was mainly used as a bailout for failed or non-response to CRT, though 27% of centers adopted it first-line in non-LBBB patients. CSP-optimized CRT procedures were rarely reported.
conclusionCSP, predominantly LBBAP, has entered routine clinical practice in Italy, particularly for AV block and as a rescue strategy in CRT. Adoption remains heterogeneous, underscoring the need for randomized trials to define class I indications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41790397What 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.