Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

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 access
Su, Lan, Wang, Songjie, Wu, Shengjie, Xu, Lei, Huang, Zhouqing, Chen, Xiao, Zheng, Rujie, Jiang, Limeng, Ellenbogen, Kenneth A., Whinnett, Zachary I., Huang, Weijian·2021·Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circep.120.009261

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 327

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.