ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Early assessment of cardiac synchrony in patients with atrioventricular block after simplified left bundle branch area pacing.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate early cardiac electrical conduction and mechanical synchrony in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) treated with simplified left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) via electrocardiogram (ECG) and echocardiogram, and to explore the disparities in cardiac synchrony between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septum pacing (LVSP).
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on AVB patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation with successful LBBAP at TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital (Nov 2022–Jun 2025). Ventricular lead implantation was guided by fluoroscopic “nine-zone method”. Baseline, intraoperative ventricular lead, 1-week postoperative ECG/echocardiography cardiac synchrony parameters, and 3-month follow-up data on complications and pacemaker programming were collected. Based on intraoperative parameters, patients with a right bundle branch block morphology in lead V1 during unipolar pacing and meeting at least one criterion were defined as the LBBP group: (1) selective left bundle branch block features(LBBB) ; (2) Stimulus to Left Ventricular Activation Time (stim-LVAT) ≤ 75 ms (non-LBBB) or ≤ 85 ms (LBBB); (3) V6-V1 R-wave peak interval difference > 44 ms. Cardiac synchrony was compared between LBBP and LVSP groups.
resultsA total of 51 patients were enrolled, with intraoperative ventricular lead parameters: threshold 0.72 ± 0.18 V, sensing 11.4 ± 4.2 mV, impedance 622.2 ± 97.8 Ω, and stim-LVAT 70.1 ± 11.0 ms. Per criteria, 30 patients (58.8%) met LBBP requirements. Postoperative QRS width was 118.8 ± 9.9 ms (LBBP) vs. 123.4 ± 10.2 ms (LVSP, P = 0.114). Echocardiographic synchrony assessments showed no significant between-group differences in the ratios of left ventricular filling time (LVFT) to the R-R interval of the electrocardiogram (LVFT/RR) (49.2 ± 0.7% vs. 46.7 ± 0.7%, P = 0.236),the interventricular mechanical delay time (IVMD) (11.2 ± 8.7 ms vs. 11.7 ± 8.7 ms, P = 0.847), or the peak strain dispersion indices (PSD) of each segment of the left ventricle (57.2 ± 22.7 ms vs. 56.0 ± 15.5 ms, P = 0.836). All patients completed 3-month follow-up, with pacing threshold unchanged from intraoperative levels (< 1.5 V) and no ventricular lead-related complications observed.
conclusionIn patients with normal cardiac function and AVB, there were no significant differences in early postoperative cardiac synchrony between the LVSP and LBBP groups.Therefore, LVSP may be considered as a potential alternative to LBBP or His pacing (HBP) in cases where the latter are not feasible.
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.