ArticleCurrent cardiology reports2015
Cardiac resynchronization therapy update: evolving indications, expanding benefit?
Article in Current cardiology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of cardiac resynchronization without a defibrillator on morbidity and mortality: an individual patient data meta-analysis of COMPANION and CARE-HF.European journal of heart failure · 2022Pooled it
- Smart Pacemaker: A Review.Cureus · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is an effective intervention for appropriately selected patients with heart failure, but exactly how it works is uncertain. Recent data suggest that much, or perhaps most, of the benefits of CRT are not delivered by re-coordinating left ventricular dyssynchrony. Atrio-ventricular resynchronization, reduction in mitral regurgitation and prevention of bradycardia are other potential mechanisms of benefit that will vary from one patient to the next and over time. Because there is no single therapeutic target, it is unlikely that any single measure will accurately predict benefit. The only clinical characteristic that appears to be a useful predictor of the benefits of CRT is a QRS duration of >140 ms. Many new approaches are being developed to try to improve the effectiveness of and extend the indications for CRT. These include smart pacing algorithms, better pacing-site targeting, new sensors, multipoint pacing, remote device monitoring and leadless endocardial pacing. Whether CRT is effective in patients with atrial fibrillation or whether adding a defibrillator function to CRT improves prognosis awaits further evidence.
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.