ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Resynchronisation efficacy of pacing strategies depends on the assessment metric: a computational study.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current evaluation of ventricular resynchronisation relies largely on ECGbased metrics, which do not fully capture the complexity of electrical synchrony. Reliance on a single clinical metric provides limited insight into the restoration of the intrinsic physiological activation sequence. To address this, we employed high-fidelity computational simulations using a multiple-metrics framework to mechanistically compare established pacing strategies. Methods: A high-resolution, anatomically and biophysically detailed four-chamber human model was used to compare the resynchronisation efficacy of conduction system pacing and biventricular pacing under focal bundle branch block. Outcomes were evaluated using: (1) ECG markers (QRS duration, Hisio-ventricular interval, V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6 R-wave peak time); (2) high-density activation maps; and (3) ventricular activation velocity, a novel metric of depolarisation dynamics. Results: Simulation results showed that pacing efficacy depended on the chosen metric. biventricular pacing improved ECG markers (e.g., QRS 120 to 90 ms) and activation velocity, but activation maps deviated most from physiological patterns. conduction system pacing produced maps resembling normal sinus rhythm, though velocity profiles showed residual dyssynchrony, highlighting that improvement on one metric did not guarantee improvement on another. Conclusion: These findings show that pacing efficacy depends on the evaluation metric and that single-metric assessment cannot capture the complex dynamics of ventricular resynchronisation. Patient-specific computational modelling offers a promising approach for non-invasive, multi-modal in silico evaluation.
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.