ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2019
Prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with electrical storm.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of patients with an electrical storm or clustered ventricular arrhythmias: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC-endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, Heart Rhythm Society, and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Electrical storm treatment by percutaneous stellate ganglion block: the STAR study.European heart journal · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study sought to assess retrospectively the prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with electrical storm (ES).
backgroundData regarding the prognostic impact of impaired LVEF in ES patients is rare.
methodsConsecutive patients presenting with ES from 2002 to 2016 were included retrospectively. Patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were compared to patients with LVEF > 35%. The primary prognostic endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality, and secondary endpoints were rates of in-hospital mortality, rehospitalization, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and ES recurrences (ES-R) at long-term follow-up.
resultsA total of 80 patients with ES were included at 2.5 years of follow-up. 69% of patients suffered from LVEF ≤ 35%. ES patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality (53% versus 8%, log-rank p = 0.0001; HR 8.524; 95% CI 2.030-35.793, p = 0.003), as well as the secondary endpoints of MACE (53% versus 20%; log rank p = 0.011; HR 3.213, 95% CI 1.241-8.316, p = 0.016) and ES-R (35% versus 8%; log rank p = 0.019; HR 4.821, 95% CI 1.122-20.706, p = 0.034). Furthermore, ES patients with LVEF ≤ 35% showed higher rates of rehospitalization due to acute heart failure (24% versus 8%, statistical trend p = 0.096). Notably, ES patients with LVEF > 35% were associated with increased rates of rehospitalization due to ventricular tachycardia (36% versus 18%, statistical trend p = 0.083).
conclusionsES patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality, MACE, ES-R and heart failure-related rehospitalization at long-term follow-up. This study evaluated retrospectively the prognostic impact of LVEF in patients with ES. LVEF ≤ 35% was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality (53% versus 8%; HR 8.524; 95% CI 2.030-35.793, p = 0.003), MACE (53% versus 20%; HR 3.213, 95% CI 1.241-8.316, p = 0.016), and ES recurrences (35% versus 8%; HR 4.821, 95% CI 1.122-20.706, p = 0.034), while trends were observed for higher rates of heart-failure related rehospitalization (24% versus 8%, p = 0.096) and MACE (49% versus 28%; p = 0.081).
Indexed as
Identifiers
30762187What 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.