We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Read it at the sourceCaptured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“LBB pacing has already become very popular and commonly used around the world, and this study confirms guideline recommendations to maintain physiologic ventricular activation when...This drop in HF events likely stems from a decrease in the development of pacing-inducted cardiomyopathy (3.4% with LBBAP vs 7.4% with RVP).”
“These findings suggest that for patients with AVB and preserved cardiac function and a high anticipated ventricular pacing burden, LBBAP offers feasibility and safety comparable to those of RVP while reducing adverse clinical outcomes.”
“The finding of a between-group difference in these HF events could have been affected by individual clinician behavior...For example, would the treating clinician be more likely to admit for shortness of breath and heart failure when they identified a QRS morphology consistent with RV septal pacing?”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2026 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: