A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Myocardial work parameters in left bundle branch area pacing versus other pacing techniques: a systematic review and aggregate comparative analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Cardiac conduction disease often necessitates permanent pacemaker implantation. While right ventricular pacing (RVP) effectively treats bradycardia, it may lead to adverse cardiac remodeling and heart failure. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative, potentially preserving myocardial function. Non-invasive myocardial work (MW) assessment provides valuable insights into left ventricular systolic function, energetics, and efficiency. This study systematically reviewed and analyzed MW parameters, comparing LBBAP to RVP and His bundle pacing (HBP). A meta-analysis of 241 patients across five studies examined four MW parameters-Global Work Index (GWI), Global Constructive Work (GCW), Global Wasted Work (GWW), and Global Work Efficiency (GWE)-at baseline, post-implantation, and last follow-up (median: 180 days, IQR: 7-360 days). At baseline, MW parameters were similar between LBBAP and RVP. Post-implantation, LBBAP preserved MW more effectively, showing significantly higher GWI than RVP (2250.0 ± 400.0 vs. 1600.0 ± 300.0 mmHg%, p = 0.027), a difference that remained significant at follow-up (p = 0.035). GWE was also significantly higher at follow-up (p = 0.011), while GCW and GWW showed no significant differences. MW parameters did not differ significantly between LBBAP and HBP (all p-values >0.05). These findings suggest that LBBAP provides superior MW preservation compared to RVP, with significant benefits in GWI and GWE, while demonstrating comparable performance to HBP.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12146104PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2025.101683DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

myocardial work
8
left bundle
8
bundle branch
8
branch area
8
area pacing
8
lbbap rvp
8
lbbap
6
pacing
5
rvp
5
work
5

Similar Publications