ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Ventricular lead positioning within the left conduction system in permanent cardiac pacing: 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left bundle fascicular pacing (LBFP) are conduction system pacing techniques that preserve physiological ventricular activation. Whether proximal or distal capture yields superior electrical or echocardiographic outcomes is uncertain.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate and compare LBFP versus left bundle branch trunk pacing (LBBP) in terms of electrical synchrony and echocardiographic characteristics in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane through May 21, 2025, for randomized and observational studies comparing LBFP with LBBP. Outcomes of interest included QRS duration, V6 R-wave peak time (RWPT), left ventricular activation time (LVAT), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and pacing thresholds. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed using I² statistics. Risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I.
resultsSix studies involving 2,989 patients (1,241 LBFP; 249 LBBP) were included. There were 3 prospective studies, 2 retrospective, and 1 that was both prospective and retrospective. There were no RCTs on this subject. LBFP was associated with a statistically shorter V6-RWPT (mean difference: − 3.50 ms; 95% CI: − 5.74 to − 1.26; p = 0.002), representing a modest electrophysiological difference without a corresponding difference in LVAT. No significant differences were observed in QRS duration, LVAT, LVEF, LVEDD, or pacing thresholds. Both modalities demonstrated high procedural success and low, stable capture thresholds.
conclusionLBFP achieved faster ventricular activation compared with LBBP, while maintaining comparable mechanical performance and pacing stability. Its broader anatomical accessibility and favorable electrical profile support LBFP as a practical alternative particularly when proximal conduction capture is not feasible. Further randomized trials are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42053747What 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.