ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Efficacy of closed loop stimulation in left bundle branch area pacing.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClosed-Loop Stimulation (CLS) adjusts pacing rate based on beat-to-beat impedance changes reflecting myocardial contractility and autonomic tone. While early studies focused on right ventricular apical leads, conduction system pacing, particularly left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers a more physiologic approach. The effect of septal lead position on CLS performance remains unclear.
objectiveTo investigate the impact of LBBAP versus alternative right ventricular lead positions on CLS performance.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the CERTITUDE registry, which includes longitudinal remote monitoring data from over 55,000 U.S. patients with Biotronik devices. Patients with dual-chamber pacemakers implanted starting January 1, 2021, with ≥ 1 year of follow-up were included, excluding those who were > 110 years old at implant, with ≥ 20% atrial fibrillation burden, < 50% transmission rate, mode switch > 7 days, or initial programming mode besides DDD-CLS/DDD. Pacing characteristics were compared across DDD and DDD-CLS modes and between LBBAP and non-LBBAP lead locations.
resultsA total of 5,395 patients were included. Baseline mean thoracic impedance was higher in non-LBBAP groups (P < 0.001), though changes over time were not significant (P = 0.336). Mean ventricular rate increased in the non-LBBAP DDD-CLS group but decreased in the DDD group (P < 0.001). Atrial arrhythmia burden was similar across pacing modes and lead locations, except for a higher burden in the non-LBBAP DDD-CLS group compared with non-LBBAP DDD.
conclusionsIn this large real-world cohort, CLS maintained stable physiological rate adaptation across pacing modes and lead locations. Minor differences in ventricular rate and thoracic impedance were observed, but overall CLS performance was consistent between LBBAP and non-LBBAP configurations, supporting its use in conduction system pacing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671688What 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.