ArticleESC heart failure2021
Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Review.JAMA · 2026Review
- Clinical impacts of sacubitril/valsartan on patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy.ESC heart failure · 2022Observational
- Acute echocardiographic and electrocardiographic effects of triggered left ventricular pacing.PloS one · 2022Article
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation.ESC heart failure · 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
30 authors at 20 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThere are conflicting data on the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure (HF) patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to compare patient outcomes according to the presence or absence of permanent AF at device implantation. METHODS AND
resultsWe retrospectively analysed remote monitoring data from 1141 CRT defibrillators. Propensity score with inverse-probability weighting method was used to balance AF and sinus rhythm (SR) groups. Analysis endpoints included total mortality, appropriate defibrillation shocks, and CRT percentage. There were 229 patients (20.1%) in the AF group and 912 patients (79.9%) in the SR group. Compared with SR patients, AF patients were older (median age, 77 vs. 72 years, P < 0.001), more frequently male (82.5% vs. 75.5%, P = 0.02), and had higher heart rate (75.7 vs. 71.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001). Of the 229 AF patients, 162 (70.7%) received suboptimal CRT (<98%) and 67 (29.3%) had adequate CRT (≥98%). During a median follow-up of 24 months, total mortality did not differ between AF and SR groups (propensity-score-weighted hazard ratio, HR 1.32 [95% confidence interval, 0.82-2.15], P = 0.25). The risk of appropriate shocks was significantly higher in the AF group with <98% CRT than in the SR group (weighted-HR, 1.99 [1.21-3.26], P = 0.006) and was similar in the AF group with ≥98% CRT versus the SR group (1.29 [0.66-2.53], P = 0.45). During follow-up, sinus rhythm was recovered in 23 patients in the AF group (10%) after a median time of 106 (42-256) days. The rate of sinus rhythm recovery in the AF group was 4.5 (95% CI, 2.8-6.7) per 100 patient-years; the rate of permanent AF occurrence in the SR group was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.9-3.3) per 100 patient-years.
conclusionsAlthough mortality was similar across patient groups, patients with permanent AF and suboptimal CRT had twofold higher risk of appropriate shocks than SR patients or AF patients with CRT ≥ 98%.
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.