ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Evaluation of cardiac energetics in left bundle branch area pacing using noninvasive pressure-volume loops.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical and electrical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing in atrioventricular block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Older Patients: A New Opportunity?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conduction system pacing, particularly left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), is emerging as the preferred strategy for bradyarrhythmias and cardiac resynchronization therapy because of its clinical benefits. However, the differences in the impact of LBBAP vs right ventricular pacing (RVP) on cardiac energetics remain unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of LBBAP and RVP on cardiac energetics using a novel noninvasive pressure-volume (PV) loop algorithm derived from cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods: We included patients who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation with LBBAP or RVP between January 2021 and October 2024, followed by CMR imaging. Noninvasive PV loops were calculated using volumes derived from CMR and a time-varying elastance model. The parameters obtained from the PV loop analysis were compared between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (3-40 mm Hg) and excluding anodal pacing cases. Results: Of the 235 patients, 15 were analyzed (LBBAP group, n = 7; RVP group, n = 8). The end-systolic PV relationship was significantly higher in the LBBAP group (2.25 mm Hg/mL [1.85-2.55]) compared to the RVP group (1.39 mm Hg/mL [1.33-1.69]; Conclusion: LBBAP reduces myocardial energy consumption and improves ventricular efficiency compared with RVP, suggesting its advantages in pacing-associated cardiac energetics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.