Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42541070›Full record

ReviewAsian biomedicine : research, reviews and news2026

Bridging the gap: optimizing conduction system pacing for cost-effectiveness and widespread adoption in low-resource settings.

Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul, David Hayes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ronpichai ChokesuwattanaskulDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
David HayesDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester 55905, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing often leads to interventricular dyssynchrony and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Conduction system pacing (CSP), particularly Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing, provides a physiologic alternative. In Limited Resource Countries (LRCs) like Thailand, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) under-penetration persists due to high costs and a shortage of operators skilled in coronary venous anatomy. Objective: To share the experience and provide clinical update of CSP as a sustainable, cost-effective physiological pacing strategy to improve access to advanced arrhythmia management in resource-constrained environments. Methods: This review explores the implementation of minimalist protocols and CSP-based CRT. Scalability strategies include specialized training programs, device reprocessing, and the establishment of regional longitudinal registries to bridge infrastructure gaps. Results: CSP-based CRT can reduce device costs by nearly 50% compared with traditional triple-lead systems. This modality effectively mitigates the hemodynamic risks of RVA pacing while bypassing the technical and financial barriers of conventional CRT. Discussion: Despite its advantages, CSP adoption requires overcoming infrastructure challenges, specifically the lack of automated remote monitoring. Optimizing clinical outcomes in LRCs necessitates standardized training, robust data collection, and innovative resource management to ensure equitable access to life-saving technology.

Indexed as

cardiac electrophysiologycardiac resynchronization therapyconduction system pacingpacing-induced cardiomyopathy

Identifiers

PMID42541070
PMCPMC13427361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.