Front. Cardiovasc. Med.Frontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineFront. Cardiovasc. Med.2297-055XFrontiers Media S.A.10.3389/fcvm.2024.1404850Cardiovascular MedicineCorrectionCorrigendum: Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: a systematic reviewZhuKailun12LiLinlin1LiuJianghai1ChangDong1*LiQiang1*Department of Cardiology, Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, ChinaSchool of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Edited and Reviewed by: Mate Vamos, University of Szeged, Hungary
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
left bundle branch pacingleft ventricular septal pacingQRS complexelectrocardiogramelectrophysiologysection-at-acceptanceCardiac RhythmologyA Corrigendum on Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: a systematic review By Zhu K, Li L, Liu J, Chang D and Li Q (2022). Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 9:1006966. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1006966
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.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.