ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Refining left bundle branch block criteria for improved left bundle branch area pacing response in heart failure.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) on the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) is a key criterion for selecting patients suitable for cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, the diagnostic criteria for LBBB vary across guidelines, and their impact on the efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the correlation among different LBBB-related ECG criteria, as well as ECG characteristics, on the efficacy of LBBAP in heart failure (HF). Methods: Consecutive patients with systolic HF with wide QRS complexes who successfully underwent LBBAP were enrolled. Preoperative standard 12-lead ECG was assessed. This included LBBB-related parameters, including time to notch/slur in lateral leads. The associations among different LBBB criteria (2009 American Heart Association guidelines, 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines, 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines, Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, and Strauss criteria) were evaluated. The endpoints were post-LBBAP electrical synchronization, echocardiographic response, and clinical outcomes. Results: Among 149 patients included in the analyses (baseline left ventricular ejection fraction 32.6% ± 7.0%; QRS duration 170.8 ± 20.3 ms), substantial variability in LBBB classification was observed among different criteria. The Strauss criteria demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for QRS narrowing (area under the curve 0.710) and showed favorable performance for identifying echocardiographic responders (area under the curve 0.631). Patients who met the Strauss LBBB criteria had a significantly lower risk of composite clinical endpoint than those without LBBB (adjusted hazard ratio 0.216; 95% confidence interval 0.057-0.810; Conclusion: LBBAP provides the most clinical benefit among patients with HF with Strauss-defined LBBB. The combination of the Strauss criteria with delayed notch/slur in lead V5/V6 maximizes the predictive value of the ECG.
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.