SynthesisOpen heart2026
Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Open heart, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP) for atrioventricular block (AVB) aiming to avoid ventricular dyssynchrony and adverse heart failure outcomes yet clinical adoption remains limited due to insufficient randomised evidence.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of CSP versus RVP in patients with AVB based exclusively on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsMEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2025. Clinical outcomes comparing CSP and RVP were analysed using HR, risk ratio (RR) and mean difference with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed with I
resultsData from five RCTs involving 985 patients with AVB were analysed. In the pooled analysis, the composite endpoint is significantly improved in the intervention pacing (HR=0.54; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95; p=0.03), similarly with markedly reduced risk for HFH (RR=0.30; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54; p<0.0001). However, no significant difference was observed between CSP and RVP in ACM (RR=0.69; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30; p=0.25). Secondary outcomes significantly favoured the CSP group, as the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly increased (p=0.008) and the QRS duration was significantly shorter (p=0.002) compared with RVP.
conclusionIn patients with AVB, CSP provides enhanced cardiac and clinical benefit compared with RVP driven by reduced HFH, improved LVEF and shorter QRS, while evidence regarding its influence on overall mortality remains uncertain.
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.