MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407002140 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1545757

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of left bundle branch area pacing on right ventricular function

2025· review· en· W4407002140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Yin, Lianxia Wang, Jiankang Meng, Qian Liu, Yan Zhang, Yanlei Zhao, Mingwang Li, Ling You

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyRight bundle branch blockMeta-analysisOdds ratioCochrane LibraryIncidence (geometry)Ventricular functionElectrocardiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This study aims to systematically evaluate and perform a meta-analysis on the effects of LBBAP on right ventricular (RV) function by collecting data on Right Ventricular Fractional Area Change (RV-FAC), Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion (TAPSE), Interventricular Mechanical Delay (IVMD), and the incidence of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) worsening in Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) patients. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted for studies published from the establishment of the respective databases until October 2024 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. After screening and data extraction, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the quality assessment of the included cohort studies, and meta-analysis was performed using R software. The effect size was estimated using either a random-effect model or a fixed-effect model, with odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD). Results A total of 14 studies were included, analyzing 1,555 LBBAP patients. The meta-analysis revealed that compared with intrinsic conduction, LBBAP implantation significantly improved RV-FAC (MD = 1.93; 95% CI: 0.64–3.23, P = 0.0034) and TAPSE (MD = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.07–2.06, P < 0.0001). Compared to the RVP group, LBBAP implantation significantly shortened IVMD (MD = −21.27; 95% CI: −31.33 to −11.22, P < 0.0001). For patients with RV dysfunction or right bundle branch block (RBBB), LBBAP implantation also significantly reduced IVMD (MD = −31.31; 95% CI: −37.10 to −25.52, P < 0.0001). The incidence of TR worsening within one year after LBBAP was approximately 8%, increasing to 23% beyond one year. Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of LBBAP over intrinsic conduction in improving RV systolic function. Compared to RVP, LBBAP significantly enhances biventricular synchronization. Furthermore, LBBAP also improves ventricular synchronization in patients with RV dysfunction or RBBB.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.039
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207