ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07684547 (REstoration of SYNChronous Cardiac Function Due to Physiologic cArdiac Pacing Modalities With Clinical Endpoints RESYNC-PACE), which is not on this 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.
REstoration of SYNChronous Cardiac Function Due to Physiologic cArdiac Pacing Modalities With Clinical Endpoints RESYNC-PACE
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
Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a physiological alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively compare the clinical efficacy and safety of these two strategies using the most up-to-date evidence. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing CSP with BVP in adult HF patients (LVEF ≤ 50%). Primary outcomes included changes in LVEF, NYHA class, QRS duration, HF hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause mortality (ACM). Secondary outcomes included echocardiographic response, procedural parameters, and complications. Random-effects models were used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I Results: 35 studies (10 RCTs, 25 observational; Conclusion: CSP may be associated with superior echocardiographic and electrocardiographic outcomes compared with BVP, but the overall certainty of the evidence remains low to very low. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and highlight the urgent need for large-scale, adequately powered RCTs to validate the potential benefits of CSP before its widespread adoption in routine clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251074973, identifier CRD420251074973.
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.