ArticlePloS one2026
Ventricular activation and repolarization in response to physiological and conventional pacing using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundPhysiological pacing targeting the cardiac conduction system is increasingly being adopted as an alternative to conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing for the treatment of bradyarrhythmias, although its effects on ventricular repolarization remain underexplored.
objectiveThis study evaluates depolarization and repolarization responses to different pacing techniques using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiograms (UHF-ECGs).
methodsTemporary pacing was performed at different cardiac areas in 178 patients with bradycardia. Depolarization was assessed via QRS duration (QRSd), QRS area (QRSa), ventricular dyssynchrony (e-DYS), and activation time dispersion (dAT computed from leads V1-V6 and dAT4-6 from leads V1-V6). Repolarization was analyzed using the corrected QT interval (QTc), T-wave area (Ta), Periodic Repolarization Dynamics (PRD), and repolarization time dispersion (dRTc and dRTc4-6).
resultsHis bundle pacing (HBP) preserved ventricular activation patterns similar to spontaneous rhythm. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) induced moderate depolarization changes, primarily due to delayed right ventricular activation, while maintaining left ventricular synchrony. In particular, dAT showed no significant differences between HBP and spontaneous rhythm, while differences between LBBAP and spontaneous rhythm were significant but below 7 ms in median. When restricted to the left ventricle (LV), no significant differences in dAT4-6 were found between LBBAP and spontaneous rhythm. Importantly, e-DYS for HBP showed similar values to spontaneous rhythm, LBBP led to a significant reduction (median differences approximately 20 ms), and RVP was associated with a significant increase (above 15 ms in median). In line with these results, QRSd and QRSa showed the largest values for RVP. In terms of ventricular repolarization, median differences in the QTc interval between pacing modes and spontaneous rhythm were below 3 ms for HBP, above 1 ms for LBBP, and above 20 ms for RVP. All pacing modes led to a reduction in PRD, with the most marked reductions observed for LBBP, particularly for selective LBBP, with median changes with respect to spontaneous rhythm of 4.6 degrees. RT and RTc showed similar trends for all pacing techniques. Ta, however, showed median differences with respect to spontaneous rhythm above 100 and 34 [Formula: see text] Vs when pacing the RV at the apex and the septum, respectively, whereas such median differences were below 16 [Formula: see text] Vs for HBP and below 2 [Formula: see text] Vs for LBBP.
conclusionPhysiological stimulation via HBP or LBBAP generates ventricular depolarization and repolarization responses that more closely resembles that of spontaneous rhythm, in high contrast to the largely different response induced by RV pacing. HBP and LBBAP have distinct technical characteristics, including differences in capture thresholds, lead stability, and procedural aspects. These techniques serve as alternatives to conventional RV pacing.
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.