ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Improved outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to left ventricular septal pacing in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-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
introductionLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) includes both left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). Although frequently considered equivalent, data regarding clinical outcomes with each of these pacing strategies in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is limited.
methodsStudies comparing LBBP and LVSP for CRT in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were included. The primary outcomes were HF-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included procedural times, paced QRS duration, procedure-related complications, and change in LVEF.
resultsFour studies involving 384 patients (pooled weighted mean age 68.28 ± 11.04 years; pooled weighted mean LVEF of 31.1 ± 7.3%) were included. Compared to LVSP, LBBP was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of HF-related hospitalization (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11–0.7; p<0.001, I²=49%) without a significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.07-1.53; p=0.16; I²=69%). There was also a significant improvement in LVEF (mean weighted difference: 4.46%; 95% CI: 0.4–8.52; p= 0.03; I² = 46) as well as shorter paced QRS duration (pooled weighted mean QRS duration 124.1 ±19.9 ms vs. 142.8 ± 23.3 ms; mean weighted difference: -16.78 ms, 95% CI -27.42 to -6.15 ms, p 0.002, I2 80%). LBBP was not associated with longer procedural duration compared with LVSP.
conclusionIn patients undergoing LBBAP for CRT, LBBP is associated with significant reductions in HF-related hospitalization, as well as significant improvements in LVEF and shorter paced QRS durations. Given our results, LVSP should not be considered equivalent to LBBP, and all efforts should be made to capture the cardiac conduction system in patients undergoing LBBAP CRT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41979859What 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.