The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Long-Term Safety and Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Large Single-Center Study
Open accessAbstract
Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel pacing method and has been observed to have low and stable pacing thresholds in prior small short-term studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LBBP in a large consecutive diverse group of patients with long-term follow-up. Methods: This study prospectively enrolled 632 consecutive pacemaker patients with attempted LBBP from April 2017 to July 2019. Pacing parameters, complications, ECG, and echocardiographic measurements were assessed at implant and during follow-up of 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. Results: LBBP was successful in 618/632 (97.8%) patients according to strict criteria for LBB capture. Mean follow-up time was 18.6±6.7 months. Two hundred thirty-one patients had follow-up over 2 years. LBB capture threshold at implant was 0.65±0.27 mV at 0.5 ms and 0.69±0.24 mV at 0.5 ms at 2-year follow-up. A significant decrease in QRS duration was observed in patients with left bundle branch block (167.22±18.99 versus 124.02±24.15 ms, P <0.001). Postimplantation left ventricular ejection fraction improved in patients with QRS≥120 ms (48.82±17.78% versus 58.12±13.04%, P <0.001). The number of patients with moderate and severe tricuspid regurgitation decreased at 1 year. Permanent right bundle branch injury occurred in 55 (8.9%) patients. LBB capture threshold increased to >3 V or loss of bundle capture in 6 patients (1%), 2 patients of them had a loss of conduction system capture. Two patients required lead revision due to dislodgement. Conclusions: This large observational study suggests that LBBP is feasible with high success rates and low complication rates during long-term follow-up. Therefore, LBBP appears to be a reliable method for physiological pacing for patients with either a bradycardia or heart failure pacing indication.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Huang, W., Su, L., Wu, S., Xu, L., Xiao, F., Zhou, X., & Ellenbogen, K. A. (2017) · Canadian Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.013 · Cited by 736
Self-citationVijayaraman, P., Subzposh, F. A., Naperkowski, A., Panikkath, R., John, K., Mascarenhas, V., Bauch, T. D., & Huang, W. (2019) · Heart Rhythm · doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.05.011 · Cited by 396
Self-citationElectrophysiologic Insights Into Site of Atrioventricular Block
Vijayaraman, P., Naperkowski, A., Ellenbogen, K. A., & Dandamudi, G. (2015) · JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2015.09.012 · Cited by 173
Self-citation
Cited by
Burri, H., Jastrzebski, M., Cano, Ó., Čurila, K., de Pooter, J., Huang, W., Israel, C., Joza, J., Romero, J., Vernooy, K., et al. (2023) · Europace · doi:10.1093/europace/euad043 · Cited by 432
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Su, L., Wang, S., Wu, S., Xu, L., Huang, Z., Chen, X., Zheng, R., Jiang, L., Ellenbogen, K. A., Whinnett, Z. I., & Huang, W.
- Venue
- Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
- Published
- 2021-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e009261-e009261
- ISSN
- 1941-3084 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-3149
- OpenAlex
- W3119843763
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 38.34
- 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: Long-Term Safety and Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Large Single-Center Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circep.120.009261
- The paper
- Su, L., Wang, S., Wu, S., Xu, L., Huang, Z., Chen, X., Zheng, R., Jiang, L., Ellenbogen, K. A., Whinnett, Z. I., & Huang, W. (2021). Long-Term Safety and Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Large Single-Center Study. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.120.009261
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.