Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 198

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation

Brignole, M., Gammage, M., Puggioni, E., Alboni, P., Raviele, A., Sutton, R., Vardas, P., Bongiorni, M.G., Bergfeldt, L., Menozzi, C., Musso, G.·2005·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: Left ventricular (LV) and biventricular (BiV) pacing are potentially superior to right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacing for permanent atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective randomized, single-blind, 3-month crossover comparison between RV and LV pacing (phase 1) and between RV and BiV pacing (phase 2) performed in 56 patients (70+/-8 years, 34 males) affected by severely symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation, uncontrolled ventricular rate, or heart failure. Primary endpoints were quality of life and exercise capacity. Compared with RV pacing, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) score improved by 2 and 10% with LV and BiV pacing, respectively, the effort dyspnoea item of the Specific Symptom Scale (SSS) changed by 0 and 2%, the Karolinska score by 6 and 14% (P<0.05 for BiV), the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by 5 and 11% (P<0.05 for BiV), the 6-min walked distance by 12 (+4%) and 4 m (+1%), and the ejection fraction by 5 and 5% (P<0.05 for both). BiV pacing but not LV pacing was slightly better than RV pacing in the subgroup of patients with preserved systolic function and absence of native left bundle branch block. Compared with pre-ablation measures, the Minnesota LHFQ score improved by 37, 39, and 49% during RV, LV, and BiV pacing, respectively, the effort dyspnoea item of the SSS by 25, 25, and 39%, the Karolinska score by 39, 42, and 54%, the NYHA class by 21, 25, and 30%, the 6-min walking distance by 35 (12%), 47 (16%), and 51 m (19%) and the ejection fraction by 5, 10, and 10% (all differences P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rhythm regularization achieved with AV-junction ablation improved quality of life and exercise capacity with all modes of pacing. LV and BiV pacing provided modest or no additional favourable effect compared with RV pacing.

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/ehi069

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 198

Metadata

Authors
Brignole, M., Gammage, M., Puggioni, E., Alboni, P., Raviele, A., Sutton, R., Vardas, P., Bongiorni, M. G., Bergfeldt, L., Menozzi, C., & Musso, G.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2004-12-20
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
712-722
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2150420946
Cited by
198
References
2
FWCI
8.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi069
The paper
Brignole, M., Gammage, M., Puggioni, E., Alboni, P., Raviele, A., Sutton, R., Vardas, P., Bongiorni, M. G., Bergfeldt, L., Menozzi, C., & Musso, G. (2005). Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi069

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.