English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Cardiac resynchronization may treat severe heart failure (HF) with pharmacological optimization, left branch block, and an ejection fraction&lt;35%. However, 30–40% of patients fail therapy. HBP could replace biventricular pacing (BiV). We compared the effectiveness of HBP versus BiV in HF patients. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies on QRS, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and 6-minute walk test. Six publications included 774 patients (mean [± standard deviation] age: 66.9 [14.0] years; 484 (62.5%) were males; 408 [52.71%] underwent HBP; the mean follow-up was 6–12 months. The HBP group had a higher QRS reduction in the meta-analysis (median: −17.54 [−20.46, −14.62]; I 2  = 89%). LVEF showed a median of 8.48 (7.55, 9.41) and I 2  of 98%, with a higher mean in HBP. The LVESV median was −18.89 (−30.03, −7.75) and I 2  was 0%, and the HBP group had a lower mean. HBP had a lower NYHA functional class (median= −0.20 [−0.28, −0.12]). After implantation, HBP demonstrated bigger QRS shortening, increased LVEF, lower LVES volume, and lower NYHA class than BiV pacing.

Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: his bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing