Two-year outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing versus traditional right ventricular pacing in middle-aged adults: a registry-based trial
Overview
Paper Summary
In this Italian registry-based trial of adults under 65, pacing the left bundle branch area was better than traditional right ventricular pacing at reducing the combined risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization over two years. However, no significant differences were seen in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality alone. Several authors disclosed financial ties to device manufacturers.
Explain Like I'm Five
In a study of middle-aged adults, pacing the heart's left bundle branch area was better than traditional right ventricular pacing for preventing heart failure or cardiovascular death.
Possible Conflicts of Interest
Several authors disclosed receiving speaker or consultant fees from medical device companies involved in cardiac pacing, including Biotronik, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Microport, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences.
Identified Limitations
Rating Explanation
This was a well-designed registry-based trial with a decent sample size. Although it wasn't a true RCT, efforts were made to minimize bias in treatment assignment and the analysis included relevant statistical adjustments. The findings are important for clinical practice, but the limitations regarding generalizability and potential confounding factors prevent a top rating.
Good to know
This is the Starter analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.
Explore Pro →