Observational studyCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2018
Facility-Level Variation and Clinical Outcomes in Use of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With and Without an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.
Observational study in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between frailty and adverse outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European geriatric medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Trends in Readmissions Rates and Mortality after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy.Current cardiology reviews · 2025Article
- Variation in regional implantation patterns of cardiac implantable electronic device in Switzerland.PloS one · 2022Article
- Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2021Review
- Mandates for Shared Decisions: Means to which Ends?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2021Review
- Geographical affiliation with top 10 NIH-funded academic medical centers and differences between mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer.American heart journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about real-world facility-level preferences for cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with (CRT-D) and without (CRT-P) defibrillator backup. We quantify this variation at the facility level and exploit this variation to compare outcomes of patients receiving these 2 devices. METHODS AND
resultsClaims data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were used to identify new CRT-P and CRT-D implants, 2006 to 2012. We modeled factors associated with receipt of each device, and compared mortality, hospitalizations, and reoperations for patients receiving each using both logistic regression and instrumental variable analysis to account for confounding. Among 71 459 device recipients (CRT-P, 11 925; CRT-D, 59 534; 31% women), CRT-P recipients were older, more likely to be women, and had more comorbidities. Variation in device selection among facilities was substantial: After adjustment for patient characteristics, the odds of receiving a CRT-P (versus CRT-D) device were 7.6× higher for a patient treated at a facility in the highest CRT-P use quartile versus a facility in the lowest CRT-P use quartile. Logistic modeling suggested a survival advantage for CRT-D devices but with falsification end points indicating residual confounding. By contrast, in the instrumental variable analysis using facility variability as the proposed instrument, clinical characteristics and falsification end points were well balanced, and 1-year mortality in patients who received CRT-P versus CRT-D implants did not differ, while CRT-P patients had a lower probability of hospitalizations and reoperations in the year following implant.
conclusionsCRT-P versus CRT-D selection varies substantially among facilities, adjusted for clinical factors. After instrumental variable adjustment for clinical covariates and facility preference, survival was no different between the devices. Therefore, CRT-P may be preferred for Medicare beneficiaries considering new CRT implantation.
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.