ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Comparison of tricuspid regurgitation after cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation using left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In patients who require a defibrillator in addition to CRT (CRT-D), LBBAP traditionally places two right ventricular leads across the tricuspid valve as opposed to a single lead with BVP. There are limited data on the change in tricuspid regurgitation (TR) after CRT-D with LBBAP compared to BVP.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference in severity of TR in patients receiving CRT-D with LBBAP versus BVP.
methodsConsecutive patients receiving CRT-D with either LBBAP or BVP between January 2022 and November 2024 were identified through chart review at a multicenter health system. TR severity was evaluated based on transthoracic echocardiography and classified as 0 (none or trivial), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), or 3 (severe) both 12 months before and after CRT-D implantation. The primary endpoint was the change in TR, defined as the difference between the pre- and post-implant TR, with positive values representing a worsening of TR and negative values representing an improvement in TR. Secondary endpoints included incidence of worsening TR, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.
results262 patients received CRT-D (mean age 73 ± 10 years, 27% female), of whom 51 (19.5%) received LBBAP while 211 (80.5%) received BVP. After excluding patients with missing TR data, 41 patients who received LBBAP and 144 patients who received BVP were included for the final analysis. The mean TR change in patients with LBBAP was 0.76 ± 0.27, while the mean TR change in patients with BVP was 0.04 ± 0.14 (P < 0.05).
conclusionsIn this retrospective study, patients receiving CRT-D with LBBAP had significant worsening of echocardiographic TR severity when compared to BVP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42340580What 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.