ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Conduction system pacing vs right ventricular pacing after TAVR: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, has emerged as a physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP) for patients developing conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare CSP with RVP. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes, and heterogeneity was assessed using I Results: 8 studies, including 784 patients, were analyzed. At 15-month follow-up, all-cause mortality did not differ significantly between CSP (left bundle branch pacing in 74%) and RVP (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.14; Conclusion: These findings suggest that CSP provides more physiological ventricular activation and may improve functional outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement without affecting overall survival. Further randomized studies are warranted to confirm these observations.
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.