ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Reverts Electromechanical Window Negativity to a Similar Extent as Biventricular Pacing.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been associated with reduced arrhythmogenic risk compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Electromechanical window (EMW) is a marker of electromechanical instability, and a negative EMW is associated with ventricular arrhythmias. We hypothesized that LBBA-CRT increases EMW at least as much as BiVP-CRT does.
methods129 CRT recipients (LBBAP: n = 63; BiVP: n = 66) were included. EMW and echocardiographic reverse remodeling were evaluated before and 6-12 months after CRT implantation in the entire cohort and in a subgroup of patients with a negative EMW at baseline. EMW is calculated by subtracting the QT interval from the time interval of QRS onset to the aortic valve closure artifact (QAoC) using CW-Doppler echocardiography.
resultsEMW measurements were feasible in 67% of patients (n = 86). No significant difference in ΔEMW was observed between LBBAP and BiVP. In patients with a negative EMW at baseline, both CRT strategies led to significant EMW increase (LBBAP: n = 21, ΔEMW +13 ms (IQR -1 to 70), p = 0.003; BiVP: n = 36, ΔEMW +26 ms (IQR -2 to 54), p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between CRT groups (p = 0.779). Left ventricular ejection fraction improved by 10% ± 11% and end-diastolic volume decreased by 37 ± 51 mL (<0.001), with no significant differences between LBBAP and BiVP. In multivariable analysis, a negative EMW at baseline, but not echocardiographic reverse remodeling, was the only independent predictor of EMW increase.
conclusionIn CRT patients with a negative EMW at baseline, LBBAP and BiVP revert EMW to a similar degree.
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.