SynthesisAnnals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc2026
Conduction System Pacing Versus Biventricular Cardiac Resynchronization in HFmrEF: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of conduction system pacing (CSP) versus biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through August 2025. Studies enrolling patients with HFmrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 41%-49%) who underwent CSP (His-bundle pacing [HBP] or left bundle branch pacing [LBBP]) or BiVP were included. Outcomes assessed included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), composite endpoints (death + HFH), echocardiographic and electrical remodeling, functional status, and procedural/device complications. Risk of bias was evaluated, and evidence was graded using the GRADE framework.
resultsSeven studies (n = 1867 patients) met inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed CSP reduced HFH (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.82) and improved the composite outcome of death or HFH (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94) compared with BiVP. Mortality was similar between groups (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63-1.07). CSP resulted in greater QRS narrowing (MD -14 ms) and consistent trends toward functional improvement. Device-related complications were numerically lower with CSP.
conclusionCSP, particularly LBBP, appears superior to BiVP in reducing HFH and enhancing electrical resynchronization in HFmrEF. Large randomized trials are warranted to confirm these findings and establish CSP as a standard resynchronization strategy.
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.