ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Comparative clinical outcomes of stylet-driven left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing in patients with preserved ejection fraction: A 3-year follow-up study.
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
Abstract
purposeChronic right ventricular pacing (RVP) can exacerbate heart failure, but the clinical impact of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains unclear. Because LBBAP has been performed almost exclusively with stylet-driven leads (SDLs) in Korea, we compared 3-year clinical outcomes between SDL-based LBBAP and conventional RVP in patients with preserved LVEF and a high anticipated pacing burden.
methodsThis prospective registry enrolled de novo patients with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%) and an expected ventricular pacing burden > 20% who underwent transvenous permanent pacemaker implantation between 2020 and 2023. LBBAP was performed using stylet-driven leads (Tendril MRI, Abbott). The composite outcome comprised all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HHF), pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), and upgrade to biventricular pacing.
resultsOf 242 patients, 125 received RVP and 117 LBBAP. Clinical characteristics were comparable between groups, except that post-implant GLS was less impaired in the LBBAP group (-15.3 ± 3.6% vs. -17.6 ± 3.5%; p < 0.001). Paced QRS duration (pQRSd) was shorter with LBBAP (157.5 ± 17.7 ms vs. 129.1 ± 18.0 ms; p < 0.001). LBB capture was achieved in 103 patients (88.1%) and LVSP in 14 (11.9%). Over a median 3-year follow-up, the primary composite outcome occurred in 33 patients (26.4%) in the RVP group and 12 (10.3%) in the LBBAP group (p = 0.003), driven by HHF (7.2% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.016) and PICM (8.8% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.016); all-cause mortality did not differ significantly (16.0% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.096). In multivariable Cox analysis, early post-implant GLS (HR 1.361; 95% CI 1.009-1.834; p = 0.043) and pQRSd (HR 1.124; 95% CI 1.057-1.196; p < 0.001) were independently associated with PICM.
conclusionsIn patients with preserved LVEF and a high pacing burden, LBBAP using stylet-driven leads was feasible and safe and was associated with better 3-year clinical outcomes than RVP, in parallel with a narrower paced QRS duration and better-preserved early post-implant GLS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42753066What 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.