ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Cardiac Amyloidosis: the Left-Right CA study, a single center, retrospective comparative non-randomized analysis.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac amyloidosis (CA), particularly transthyretin-related (ATTR-CA), frequently causes conduction disease requiring pacing. Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) may worsen heart failure (HF) through dyssynchronous activation, while left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) provides a more physiological alternative. Comparative data in CA are lacking.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective study included CA patients with CIED (cardiac implantable electronic devices) with LBBAP and RVP. It aimed to compare feasibility, procedural characteristics, and outcomes between both approaches. Diagnosis of CA followed current guideline criteria. HF worsening was defined as clinical deterioration requiring escalation of diuretics or outpatient reassessment; acute HF events as hospitalizations for decompensated HF.
results35 CA patients (22 LBBAP, 13 RVP) were included. Overall, 32 (91%) had transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CA) and 3 (9%) light-chain amyloidosis (AL-CA). Baseline HF was more advanced in the LBBAP group (NYHA 2.6 ± 0.7 vs. 2.0 ± 0.6, p = 0.007; BNP 594 ± 617 vs. 121 ± 71 pg/mL, p = 0.006). Procedural and fluoroscopy times were longer with LBBAP, but paced QRS duration was significantly shorter (116 ± 17 vs. 159 ± 12 ms, p < 0.001). During follow-up (16 ± 10 vs. 32 ± 24 months), LBBAP was associated with markedly fewer HF worsening (9.1% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.0012) and acute HF events (4.5% vs. 69.2%, p < 0.001), despite higher ventricular pacing burden (> 40% in 90.9% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.032). Mortality (22.7% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.689) and complication rates (9.1% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.618) were comparable.
conclusionsLBBAP is feasible and appears safe in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and was associated with fewer heart-failure-related events compared with RVP, even in advanced disease. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant validation in larger prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41872573What 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.