Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 376

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Open access
Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi, Ponnusamy, ShunmugaSundaram, Cano, Óscar, Sharma, Parikshit S., Naperkowski, Angela, Subsposh, Faiz A., Moskal, Pawel, Bednarek, Agnieszka, Dal Forno, Alexander R., Young, Wilson, Nanda, Sudip, Beer, Dominik, Herweg, Bengt, Jastrzebski, Marek·2021·JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in an international, multicenter, collaborative study. BACKGROUND CRT using biventricular pacing is effective in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB). LBBAP has been reported as an alternative option for CRT. METHODS LBBAP was attempted in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% and indications for CRT or pacing. Procedural outcomes, left bundle branch capture, New York Heart Association functional class, heart failure hospitalization, echocardiographic data, and lead complications were recorded. Clinical (no heart failure hospitalization and improvement in New York Heart Association functional class) and echocardiographic responses (≥5% improvement in LVEF) were assessed. RESULTS LBBAP was attempted in 325 patients, and CRT was successfully achieved in 277 (85%) (mean age 71 ± 12 years, 35% women, ischemic cardiomyopathy in 44%). QRS configuration at baseline was LBBB in 39% and non-LBBB in 46%. Procedure and fluoroscopy duration were 105 ± 54 and 19 ± 15 min, respectively. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.6 ± 0.3 V at 0.5 ms and 10.6 ± 6 mV at implantation and remained stable during mean follow-up of 6 ± 5 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 152 ± 32 to 137 ± 22 ms (p < 0.01). LVEF improved from 33 ± 10% to 44 ± 11% (p < 0.01). Clinical and echocardiographic responses were observed in 72% and 73% of patients, respectively. Baseline LBBB (odds ratio: 3.96; 95% confidence interval: 1.64 to 9.26; p < 0.01) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.79; p < 0.01) were independent predictors of echocardiographic response. CONCLUSIONS LBBAP is feasible and safe and provides an alternative option for CRT. LBBAP provides remarkably low and stable pacing thresholds and was associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.08.015

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Metadata

Authors
Vijayaraman, P., Ponnusamy, S., Cano, Ó., Sharma, P. S., Naperkowski, A., Subsposh, F. A., Moskal, P., Bednarek, A., Dal Forno, A. R., Young, W., Nanda, S., Beer, D., Herweg, B., & Jastrzebski, M.
Venue
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
135-147
ISSN
2405-500X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3095458005
Cited by
376
References
7
FWCI
26.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacep.2020.08.015
The paper
Vijayaraman, P., Ponnusamy, S., Cano, Ó., Sharma, P. S., Naperkowski, A., Subsposh, F. A., Moskal, P., Bednarek, A., Dal Forno, A. R., Young, W., Nanda, S., Beer, D., Herweg, B., & Jastrzebski, M. (2021). Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2020.08.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.