Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 517

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study

Open access
Jastrzębski, Marek, Kiełbasa, Grzegorz, Cano, Oscar, Curila, Karol, Heckman, Luuk, De Pooter, Jan, Chovanec, Milan, Rademakers, Leonard, Huybrechts, Wim, Grieco, Domenico, Whinnett, Zachary I, Timmer, Stefan A J, Elvan, Arif, Stros, Petr, Moskal, Paweł, Burri, Haran, Zanon, Francesco, Vernooy, Kevin·2022·European Heart Journal

Abstract

Aims: Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. Methods and results: This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). Conclusions: LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical 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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac445

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 517

Metadata

Authors
Jastrzębski, M., Kiełbasa, G., Cano, O., Curila, K., Heckman, L., De Pooter, J., Chovanec, M., Rademakers, L., Huybrechts, W., Grieco, D., Whinnett, Z. I., Timmer, S. A. J., Elvan, A., Stros, P., Moskal, P., Burri, H., Zanon, F., & Vernooy, K.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2022-08-18
Volume
43
Issue
40
Pages
4161-4173
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W4292241965
Cited by
517
References
3
FWCI
61.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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 outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac445
The paper
Jastrzębski, M., Kiełbasa, G., Cano, O., Curila, K., Heckman, L., De Pooter, J., Chovanec, M., Rademakers, L., Huybrechts, W., Grieco, D., Whinnett, Z. I., Timmer, S. A. J., Elvan, A., Stros, P., Moskal, P., Burri, H., Zanon, F., & Vernooy, K. (2022). Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac445

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.