Comparative effects of biventricular and right ventricular pacing on clinical outcomes in atrioventricular block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMC Cardiovasc Disord · 2025 · PMC12649102 · PMID 41291441

Europe PMC DOI

hedged sentences

0.0500

closest p · 1.0× alpha

0.2100

boldest claim

The sentences

borderline significantp = 0.05actually significant

The pooled analysis showed a borderline significant improvement in walking distance with RV pacing compared to BiV pacing (MD: 10.32 m [95% CI: −0.06 to 20.71]; p = 0.05; I2 = 0%; Fig. 2 c).

also in 6,822 other papers

did not reach statistical significancep = 0.21not close (p > 0.1)

Pooled analysis suggested a trend toward reduced mortality with BiV pacing, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.70 to 1.08]; p = 0.21; I2 = 21%; Fig. 2 b).

also in 75,868 other papers

a marginal trendno p-value reported

For 6MWD, no significant interaction was observed; a marginal trend favoring RV pacing in the reduced LVEF subgroup likely reflects transient hemodynamic effects of RV apical pacing in compromised ventricles rather than a true treatment difference [ 42 , 43 ].

also in 458 other papers

Quoted from the open-access full text in Europe PMC under the licence the publisher applied. The sentence is reproduced exactly as published; the emphasis is ours.