Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41982604›Full record

ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2026

Conduction System Pacing Leads: Lumenless versus Stylet-driven Technologies in Contemporary Practice.

Amr Abdin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Amr AbdinDepartment of Internal Medicine III, Saarland University Medical Center Homburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as a physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and an evolving modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. As clinical adoption expands, lead technology has become central to procedural success, electrical performance, and long-term safety. Historically, CSP has relied on lumenless leads (LLL), while stylet-driven leads (SDL) are increasingly used, particularly for LBBAP. Current evidence indicates that CSP procedures are feasible, reproducible, and show positive trends in outcomes for both bradycardia and heart failure patients, with both LLL and SDL achieving high implant success and comparable pacing parameters. However, differences in mechanical design may influence implantation technique, complication profiles, and long-term durability. Although observational studies and registries support the safety and effectiveness of both lead types, long-term data on lead fracture, extractability, and device-specific performance remain limited. At present, no clear superiority of one platform over the other can be established. Lead selection should therefore be individualised, guided by anatomy, operator experience and device-specific evidence, while further prospective studies are needed to optimise CSP lead design and long-term outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID41982604
PMCPMC13071582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.