ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2014
What is the lowest value of left ventricular baseline ejection fraction that predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Availability of Viable Left Ventricular Pacing Sites with Quartet™ Quadripolar Leads.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017Trial
- Prognostic effects of longitudinal changes in left ventricular ejection fraction with cardiac resynchronization therapy.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- One-point carotid wave intensity predicts cardiac mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2015Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment option for patients with refractory heart failure. However, many patients do not respond to therapy. Although it has been thought that there was no relation between response to CRT and baseline ejection fraction (EF), the response rate of patients with different baseline LVEF to CRT has not been evaluated in severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate any difference in response to CRT between the severe heart failure patients with different baseline LVEF. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this study, 141 consecutive patients (mean age 59±13 years; 89 men) with severe heart failure and complete LBBB were included. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their baseline LVEF: 5-15%, Group 1; 15-25%, Group 2, and 25-35%, Group 3. NYHA functional class, LVEF, LV volumes, and diameters were assessed at baseline and after 6 months of CRT. A response to CRT was defined as a decrease in LVSVi (left ventricular end-systolic volume index) ≥10% on echocardiography at 6 months.
resultsAfter 6 months, a significant increase of EF and a significant decrease of LVESVi and LVEDVi after 6 months of CRT were observed in all groups. Although the magnitude of improvement in EF was biggest in the first group, the percentage of decrease in LVESVi and LVEDVi was similar between the groups. The improvement in NYHA functional class was similar in all EF subgroups. At 6-month follow-up, 100 (71%) patients showed a reduction of >10% in LVESVi (mean reduction: -15.5±26.1 ml/m^2) and were therefore classified as responders to CRT. Response rate to CRT was similar in all groups. It was 67%, 75%, and 70% in Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively, at 6-month follow-up (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant relation between the response rate to CRT and baseline LVEF, showing that the CRT has beneficial effects even in patients with very low LVEF.
conclusionsIt seems there is no lower limit for baseline LVEF to predict non-response to CRT in eligible patients according to current guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.