Trial reportClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2013
One-year outcome after CRT implantation in NYHA class IV in comparison to NYHA class III patients.
Trial report in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Very Long-Term Follow-Up in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Wider Paced QRS Equals Worse Prognosis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Review
- [Chronic heart failure : current guideline recommendations and innovations].Der Internist · 2015Review
- Registry in Germany focusing on level-specific and evidence-based decision finding in the treatment of heart failure: REFLECT-HF.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2014Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the analysis was to compare the outcome of heart failure patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV to that of NYHA class III patients 1 year after implantation of a CRT device.
methodsThe analysis was based on the 405 CRT patients enrolled in the MASCOT trial. At enrollment, 350 patients (86%) were in NYHA class III and 55 (14 %) were in NYHA class IV.
resultsAt 1-year follow-up, the improvement of the ejection fraction was not statistically significantly different between NYHA class III (+7.6 ± 11.7%) and NYHA class IV patients (+9.2 ± 14.2 %; p = 0.78). NYHA class IV patients had a better mean NYHA class reduction with -1.93 ± 0.83 than NYHA class III patients with -0.93 ± 0.70 (p < 0.0001). There was a greater mean quality of life improvement in NYHA class IV (-27.2 ± 20.9) compared to NYHA class III (-17.7 ± 23.9; p = 0.02). All-cause mortality as well as cardiac mortality remained higher in NYHA class IV with 25.5 and 16.4% than in NYHA class III with 7.1 and 3.1% (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsIn this study, 14% of all patients receiving a CRT device had NYHA class IV at implantation. The data support the concept to implant a CRT device in NYHA class IV patients, because at 1 year after implantation, they experienced better symptomatic improvement compared to NYHA class III patients. The higher cardiac as well as non-cardiac mortality resulted in a fivefold higher all-cause mortality compared to NYHA class III patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23543129What 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.