ArticleAnnals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc2026
Maskerading Bundle Branch Block Versus Standard Bifascicular Block: A Prognostic Analysis Results Through Electrophysiological Study.
Article in Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc, 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
backgroundMaskerading bundle branch block (MBBB) is a rare variant of standard bifascicular bundle branch block (SBBB), associated with poor prognosis and a higher need for pacemaker implantation. Most available data are limited to case reports and reviews.
methodsIn this prospective cross-sectional study, we evaluated 27 patients with MBBB (Group I) and 18 with SBBB (Group II), all undergoing echocardiography, 24-h Holter monitoring, and invasive electrophysiological study (EPS) after recruitment.
resultsGroup I patients had worse functional status (NYHA III-IV), larger ventricular diameters, and lower ejection fraction. The HV interval was significantly longer in Group I (66.3 ± 18.3 vs. 52.9 ± 8.1 ms; p = 0.006). Pacemaker implantation was required in 48% of Group I patients versus none in Group II (p = 0.001). Persistent atrial fibrillation was also more frequent in Group I (39.5% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.018).
conclusionMBBB is associated with more severe myocardial and conduction system impairment compared to SBBB, supporting its role as a marker of worse prognosis.
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.