ReviewHeart failure reviews2026
Cardiac implantable electronic devices in heart failure: needs, challenges, and real-world implementation.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are integral to heart failure (HF) management, providing therapies for bradyarrhythmias, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention, and remote monitoring. This review summarizes current and potential future indications, emerging technologies, and challenges in the implementation of CIEDs in HF. Conventional right ventricular pacing in HF patients is increasingly being replaced by biventricular pacing (BVP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), while leadless pacing pacemakers have emerged as an alternative to conventional transvenous systems, offering the potential to reduce lead- and device-related complications. As BVP remains the standard approach for CRT, recent data bestow LBBAP as a promising alternative and integration platform. Newer implantable cardioverter-defibrillator technologies, including subcutaneous and extravascular systems, may reduce lead-related complications while maintaining effective arrhythmia termination and recognition. Advances in atrial fibrillation management, implantable hemodynamic monitoring, and novel pacing indications such as atrioventricular recoupling and personalized pacing in HF with preserved ejection fraction are expanding the therapeutic potential of CIEDs. However, the adoption of these innovations is challenged by limited randomized evidence, procedural complexity, and substantial disparities in access and implementation across healthcare systems. Ongoing clinical trials will help define the role of emerging device technologies and monitoring strategies, while efforts to improve guideline adherence, value-based procurement, and equitable access remain essential to maximize the benefits of CIED therapy in patients with HF.
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.