ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Transesophageal echocardiography versus fluoroscopy-guided left bundle branch area pacing: a comparative study.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConduction System Pacing (CSP), particularly Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as a physiological alternative to conventional ventricular pacing. However, optimal lead placement remains challenging. In this study, we investigated whether intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) can facilitate LBBAP implantation and improve procedural efficiency, lead positioning, and electrical outcomes compared with the conventional fluoroscopy-guided approach.
methodsIn this single-center, retrospective, non-randomized cohort study, we evaluated 405 consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP between January 2018 and March 2025. The study compared a conventional fluoroscopy-only approach in the initial 198 patients and a TEE-guided approach in the subsequent 207 patients. Primary endpoints were categorized as measures of procedural efficiency assessed by total procedure time and fluoroscopy time and electrical performance evaluated by post-procedural QRS duration, R-wave peak time in lead V6, and final lead impedance.
resultsThe TEE-guided group demonstrated significantly shorter total procedure and fluoroscopy times (65.5 ± 25.2 vs. 89.9 ± 37.9 min; p < 0.001/ 12.8 ± 9.9 vs. 15.8 ± 10.5 min; p < 0.001). Post-procedural QRS duration was narrower in the TEE group (108 ± 16 vs. 116 ± 15 ms; p < 0.001), with a more pronounced reduction in patients with baseline wide QRS (> 140 ms) (ΔQRS: -54 ± 23 vs. -46 ± 21 ms; p < 0.001). Notably, lead impedance was significantly lower with TEE guidance (523.6 ± 115.6 vs. 611.3 ± 155.9 Ω; p < 0.001), while pacing thresholds and R-wave amplitudes were similar. Complication rates were low and comparable.
conclusionsTEE-guided LBBAP implantation is associated with enhanced procedural efficiency and adequate cardiac electrical resynchronization. Incorporation of TEE into CSP implantation protocols warrants further evaluation in randomized trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42258109What 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.