Key result
This review outlines the advantages and limitations of different cardiac pacing sites, comparing physiological and traditional pacing to guide clinical application and future research.
Why the study?
Whether physiological pacing meets expectations and is superior to traditional pacing in clinical outcomes remains to be studied.
Does physiological pacing improve clinical outcomes compared to traditional pacing?
Does physiological pacing improve clinical outcomes compared to traditional pacing?
This review provides an overview of the advantages and limitations of different cardiac pacing sites, comparing physiological and traditional pacing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Physiologic pacing superiority over traditional approaches remains unproven; leaves open the need for definitive comparative outcome trials.
心脏起搏60多年来在临床应用中不断发展,随着人们逐渐认识到传统起搏方式的不足后,更为符合生理的起搏方式应运而生。生理性起搏方式是否更符合预期,在临床结局上是否优于传统起搏方式,尚有待考究。本综述旨在全面概述不同起搏部位的优势和局限性,为临床应用提供参考,对不同起搏部位对比研究提出相关展望。Cardiac pacing for clinical application has been developing for more than 60 years. With the gradual recognition of the disadvantage of traditional pacing, physiological pacing has emerged. Whether physiologic pacing can meet more expectations and whether it is better than traditional pacing in clinical outcome remains to be studied. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of the advantages and limitations of different pacing sites, provide reference for clinical application, and propose prospects for studies for comparation of different pacing sites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
雨婷 钱 (2024) conducted a review in Cardiac pacing. Physiological pacing vs. Traditional pacing was evaluated. This review outlines the advantages and limitations of different cardiac pacing sites, comparing physiological and traditional pacing to guide clinical application and future research.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: