Trial reportScientific reports2018
Evaluation of the therapeutic effects of QuickOpt optimization in Chinese patients with chronic heart failure treated by cardiac resynchronization.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergent role of dynamic optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2024Pooled it
- Echocardiography- versus intracardiac electrocardiogram-based optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023Pooled it
- Real-World Effectiveness of Adaptive Left Ventricular-Only Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Asian Population: Insights From the K-Adaptive CRT Study.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of automatic algorithms in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Effect Evaluation of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Elderly Patients with Heart Failure by Ultrasound Image under QuickOpt Algorithm.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Acute recoordination rather than functional hemodynamic improvement determines reverse remodelling by cardiac resynchronisation therapy.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this trial, long-term therapeutic effects and clinical improvements in Chinese chronic heart failure patients optimized by QuickOpt or echocardiography were compared for atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delay optimizations after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with pacing (CRT-P) or with pacing and defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy. One hundred and ninety-six subjects (50%) had dilated cardiomyopathy, 108 (27.6%) had ischemic heart disease and 112 (28.6%) were hypertensive and were randomized into QuickOpt (198) or echocardiographic optimization (control) (194) groups at ≤2-weeks post-implantation. Programmed AV/VV delay was optimized at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, specific activity scale (SAS), and the six-minute walk tests (6MWT) were evaluated by blinded researchers at 12 months. Of the QuickOpt group, LVESV decreased significantly by 24.7% ± 33.9% compared with baseline, while LVESV of Controls decreased by 25.1% ± 36.1% (P = 0.924). NYHA class, SAS and 6MWT also improved similarly in both groups at 12 months. Mortality in both groups was not significantly different (11.0% vs 7.6%, P = 0.289). However, there was a significant difference in the time required for optimization by QuickOpt compared with echocardiography (3.33 ± 3.11 vs 58.79 ± 27.03 minutes, P < 0.000).
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.