Trial reportJournal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs2013
A novel methodology for AV and VV delay optimization in CRT: results from a randomized pilot clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Journal of Artificial Organs 2013: the year in review : Journal of Artificial Organs Editorial Committee.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this work was to determine whether the use of a newly developed methodology (Alg1) for AV and VV optimization improves cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) clinical and echocardiographic (ECHO) outcomes. In this single-center pilot clinical trial, 80 consecutive patients (79 % male; 70.1 ± 11.2 years) receiving CRT were randomly assigned to AV and VV optimization using Alg1 (group A) or standard commercial procedures (group B). Clinical status and ECHOs were analyzed at baseline (_0) , 3 (fu1), and 6 months (fu2) of follow-up evaluating left ventricular end systolic (LVESV) and end diastolic (LVEDV) volumes, ejection fraction (EF), Minnesota test, and 6-min walk test (6MWT). Alg1 is based on a cardiovascular model fed with patient data. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. Group A had a better clinical outcome and reverse remodeling. Remodeling was calculated as the difference (Δ) between fu1 and _0 and between fu2 and fu1, respectively: [LVESV (ml): ΔA_fu1 = -55.3, ΔB_fu1 = -13.5, p_fu1 = 0.002; ΔA_fu2 = -22.8, ΔB_fu2 = 3.0, p_fu2 = 0.04], [LVEDV (ml): ΔA_fu1 = -61.9, ΔB_fu1 = -16.1, p_fu1 = 0.01; ΔA_fu2 = -30.4, ΔB_fu2 = 11.3, p_fu2 = 0.02]; Minnesota test: total (p_fu1 = 0.01; p_fu2 = 0.04), physical (p_fu1 = 0.01; p_fu2 = 0.03) and emotional scores (p_fu1 = 0.04; p_fu2 = 0.03) and in 6MWT (m) (p_fu2 = 0.008). No statistically significant difference was observed in QRS width. Compared with current standard of care, CRT optimization using Alg1 is associated with better outcomes, showing the power of a tailored CRT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23504186What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.