ArticleESC heart failure2021
Judgement of the multidisciplinary team is an important predictor of mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy.
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 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potentially Inappropriate Cardioverter Defibrillator Implants in Secondary Prevention of Death.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Judgement of the multidisciplinary team is an important predictor of mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy.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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in appropriately selected patients with heart failure improves symptoms and survival. It is necessary to correctly identify patients who will benefit most from this therapy. We aimed to assess the predictive power of the multidisciplinary team's clinical judgement in the short-term death after CRT implantation. METHODS AND
resultsPatients with heart failure and referred for the first CRT implant were prospectively included. Prior to implantation, all patients underwent a systematic assessment with a team composed of social work, nurse, psychologist, nutritionist, and clinical cardiologist. Based on this assessment, patients could be contraindicated to CRT or referred to the procedure as favourable or unfavourable. All patients should complete 12 months of follow-up; 172 patients were referred for CRT, 21 (12.2%) were contraindicated after the multidisciplinary team evaluation, 71 (47%) referred to CRT as non-favourable implants, and 80 (53%) as favourable implants. All-cause mortality occurred in only 2 (2.5%) patients in the favourable group and in 30 (42.3%) in the non-favourable group, P < 0.001 (log rank). Among the 20 variables used as possible predictors of worse prognosis by the multidisciplinary team, four were independently associated with mortality in the follow-up after the multivariate analysis: 1 year MAGGIC score between 40% and 49%, relative risk (RR) 5.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-18.6, P = 0.016; poor pharmacological adherence, RR 4.9, 95% CI 1.6-15.6, P = 0.007; glomerular filtration rate <35 mL/min/1.73 m
conclusionsThe clinical judgement before the CRT implantation performed by a multidisciplinary team through the analysis of clinical and psychosocial variables is a strong predictor of short-term mortality.
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.