ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Outcomes of conduction system and right ventricular pacing in bradyarrhythmia indications: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched and randomized studies.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence supporting the use of conduction system pacing (CSP) in bradycardia is currently predominantly based on observational data. We performed a meta-analysis of recent propensity-score matched (PSM) studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating outcomes of CSP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in bradycardia indications.
methodsWe systematically searched three databases for eligible studies. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses of RCTs were performed for key outcomes.
resultsFifteen studies (8 RCTs, 7 PSM) comprising 6,064 patients were included. Compared to RVP, CSP significantly reduced heart failure hospitalizations (RR:0.31; 95% CI:0.21-0.46; p < 0.001) and the need for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrades (RR:0.31; 95% CI:0.12-0.78; p = 0.01), while modestly improving left ventricular ejection fraction (MD:3.98%; 95% CI:2.22-5.74; p < 0.001) and resulting in narrower QRS durations (MD:-27.3 ms; 95% CI:-35.9 to -18.6; p < 0.001). These findings were consistent in sub-analyses of RCTs. CSP was associated with reduction of all-cause mortality in the overall analysis (RR:0.51; 95% CI:0.34-0.78; p = 0.002), but not in the RCT and PSM subgroups. No significant differences between groups were observed for cardiovascular mortality (RR:0.49; 95% CI:0.23-1.04; p = 0.06), procedural complications, or atrial fibrillation. CSP was associated with longer procedural and fluoroscopy times.
conclusionCSP significantly reduces the risk of heart failure hospitalizations and the need for CRT upgrades compared to RVP in patients with bradycardia indications. Ongoing, large-scale RCTs are needed to verify the effect of CSP on mortality and its long-term safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42406262What 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.