ReviewFrontiers in physiology2026
Left bundle branch pacing is a superior pacing strategy compared to left ventricular septal pacing: insights from the pooled clinical evidence.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 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
Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is proposed as a superior physiological pacing method to left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). However, its comparative benefits on hard clinical outcomes remain inadequately defined. Methods: We systematically searched four databases for studies comparing LBBP with LVSP. The primary outcomes were all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH), all-cause death, HFH, or malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify effect modifiers for the paced QRS duration and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at follow-up. Results: Fourteen studies with 1,592 patients were included. LBBP was associated with reduced risks of all-cause death/HFH (risk ratio [RR] = 0.25), all-cause death (RR = 0.30), HFH (RR = 0.26), and malignant ventricular arrhythmias (RR = 0.36). LBBP also resulted in a QRS narrowing and greater LVEF improvement. Subgroup analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in paced QRS duration and LVEF in the patient subgroups under 70 years of age and those with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications. Conclusions: LBBP may be superior to LVSP, reducing mortality, heart failure, and arrhythmic events. Younger patients and those requiring CRT derive the greater benefit. These promising findings support LBBP as a preferred physiological pacing strategy, but large-scale randomized trials are needed to confirm these results. Clinical trial registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251031432, identifier CRD420251031432.
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.