ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Deep Septal Pacing in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Deep Septal Pacing in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported to improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Deep septal pacing (DSP) has emerged as a potential alternative to LBBAP.
objectiveThis study investigated whether short-term and long-term clinical outcomes differ between LBBAP and DSP in post-TAVR patients.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing LBBAP or DSP following TAVR were retrospectively included at our institution. Short-term clinical outcomes (1-year follow-up) were assessed by echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling and changes in QRS duration and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. For long-term outcomes, the primary composite endpoint was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary endpoints included HFH and improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (≥ 2 grades).
resultsA total of 82 patients (39 LBBAP and 43 DSP) were observed for a mean duration of 731.8 days. There was no significant difference between two groups in the risk of primary endpoint (23.1% vs. 23.3%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61; 95% CI: 0.23-1.61, p = 0.315) and HFH (17.9% vs. 20.9%, aHR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.22-1.82; p = 0.402). However, LBBAP was a robust predictor of NYHA class improvement compared to DSP (53.8% vs. 27.9%, aHR 2.23; 95% CI: 1.03-4.87, p = 0.043), especially when left bundle branch (LBB) capture was independently confirmed (aHR 2.74, p = 0.006). Both modalities were similarly effective in improving electromechanical and biochemical parameters, including LVEF, LVEDD, QRS duration, and NT-proBNP (all p > 0.05).
conclusionLBBAP and DSP yield comparable risks for the primary composite endpoint and HFH, yet LBBAP provides superior symptomatic relief. Confirmation of left bundle branch capture is advisable to optimize clinical benefits. Liangzhen Qu and Xueting Duan contributed equally to this manuscript.
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.