Corrigendum: Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: a systematic review
Kailun Zhu, Linlin Li, Jianghai Liu, Dong Chang, Qiang Li
Abstract
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
In the published article, there was an error. In the transition from NSLBBP to SLBBP and the transition from NSLBBP to LVSP, the description of RWPTV1 and Stim-LVAT was incorrect.
A correction has been made to The value of criteria for differentiating LBBP and LVSP, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“The transition from NSLBBP to SLBBP prolonged the interval of stimulus artifact to late R-wave in lead V1 (RWPTV1; 120.7 ± 16.7 vs. 138.5 ± 21.5 ms, *P *< 0.001) and Stim-LVAT (119.3 ± 14.5 vs. 125.6 ± 13.8 ms, *P *< 0.001). The transition from NSLBBP to LVSP resulted in an increase in Stim-LVAT by ≥15 ms (78.4 ± 10.8 vs. 98.4 ± 13.9 ms) but only minimally influenced RWPTV1 (77.2 ± 13.6 vs. 76.6 ± 14.1 ms, P = 0.36)”.
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The transition from NSLBBP to SLBBP prolonged the interval of stimulus artifact to late R-wave in lead V1 (RWPTV1; 120.7 ± 16.7 vs. 138.5 ± 21.5 ms, *P *< 0.001), but had no significant effect on Stim-LVAT (77.2 ± 13.6 ms vs. 76.6 ± 14.1 ms, P = 0.36). The transition from NSLBBP to LVSP resulted in an increase in Stim-LVAT by ≥15 ms (78.4 ± 10.8 vs. 98.4 ± 13.9 ms), but only an increase of 6.2 ± 6.3 ms in RWPTV1 (119.3 ± 14.5 ms vs. 125.6 ± 13.8 ms, P < 0.001)”.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.