ArticleHeart rhythm O22021
Long-term clinical outcomes after upgrade to resynchronization therapy: A propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2023Pooled it
- Cardiac remodelling and functional status after cardiac resynchronization therapy: comparison between de-novo implantation and upgrade from right ventricular pacing.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Cardiac resynchronization in pacing-associated cardiomyopathy: Is it time to upgrade?Heart rhythm O2 · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is common in Europe, despite little and conflicting evidence.
objectiveTo compare long-term clinical outcomes in a cohort of patients receiving de novo or upgrade to CRT.
methodsSingle-center retrospective study of 295 consecutive patients submitted to CRT implantation between 2007 and 2018. Upgraded and de novo patients complying with a dedicated follow-up protocol were compared in terms of clinical (NYHA class improvement without major adverse cardiac events [MACE] in the first year of follow-up) and echocardiographic (left ventricle end-systolic volume reduction of >15% during the first year) response.
resultsNo differences in the rate of clinical (59.3% vs 62.6%,
conclusionSurvival after upgrade to resynchronization therapy was comparable to de novo implants. Additionally, clinical and echocardiographic response to CRT in upgraded patients were similar to de novo patients.
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.