Trial reportESC heart failure2020
Differences in clinical characteristics and reported quality of life of men and women undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Trial report in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conduction system pacing is superior to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: Insights from the pooled clinical studies.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Pooled it
- Integrating sex and gender in studies of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review.ESC heart failure · 2022Pooled it
- Response by Sex in Patient-Centered Outcomes With Baroreflex Activation Therapy in Systolic Heart Failure.JACC. Heart failure · 2021Trial
- Differences in clinical characteristics and reported quality of life of men and women undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.ESC heart failure · 2020Trial
- Fusion Pacing with Biventricular, Left Ventricular-only and Multipoint Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Latest Evidence and Strategies for Use.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2021Review
- AnaLysIs of Both sex and device specific factoRs on outcomes in pAtients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (BIO-LIBRA): Design and clinical protocol.Heart rhythm O2 · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 10 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsResponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is known to be associated with a number of clinical characteristics, including QRS duration and morphology, gender, height, and the aetiology of heart failure (HF). We assessed the relation of gender and baseline characteristics with QRS duration and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. METHODS AND
resultsAdaptResponse is a global randomized trial. The trial enrolled CRT-indicated patients with New York Heart Association classes II-IV HF, left bundle branch block (QRS ≥ 140 ms in men, ≥130 ms in women), and baseline PR interval ≤200 ms. In total, 3620 patients were randomized, including 1569 women (43.3%) approaching the actual proportion of women in the HF population. Women were older and more often New York Heart Association class III or IV than men (55.6% vs. 48.7%), had less frequent ischaemic cardiomyopathy (21.2% vs. 39.5%), and had a 5.1 ms shorter QRS duration than men. Women were more often depressed (18.5% vs. 9.7%), had a significantly lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, and had differences in medication prescriptions.
conclusionsAdaptResponse is the largest randomized CRT trial and enrolled more women than any other landmark CRT trial. Women differed from men with regard to baseline characteristics and quality of life. Whether these differences translate into clinical outcome differences will be examined further in the AdaptResponse trial.
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.