ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2014
Comparative effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in combination with implantable defibrillator in patients with heart failure and wide QRS duration.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2014. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators With Versus Without Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With a QRS Duration >180 ms.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Several clinical trials have established that cardiac resynchronization therapy in combination with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator improves survival and alleviates heart failure symptoms in appropriately selected patients. Recent guidelines have expanded the indications to include patients with less severe heart failure. The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which cardiac resynchronization therapy in combination with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator improves survival and reduces risk for heart failure hospitalization in United States Medicare patients who met class I or class IIa recommendations. Propensity score methods were used to assess survival and rehospitalization outcomes in Medicare patients. Among patients who met class I recommendations, those with combined cardiac resynchronization therapy had significantly lower risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 0.88, p <0.0001) and lower risk for rehospitalization (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94, p <0.0001). Among patients who met class IIa recommendations, the relative hazard of death for patients with combined cardiac resynchronization therapy was lower (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96, p = 0.0015), but there was no significant difference in the risk for rehospitalization for heart failure (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10, p = 0.2600). In conclusion, cardiac resynchronization therapy in combination with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator resulted in improved survival among Medicare patients meeting class I criteria and most patients meeting class IIa criteria as outlined in the current guidelines for device-based therapy in heart failure, although the effect sizes were lower than those demonstrated in recent trials.
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.