ReviewThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2022
Complications of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Comparison of Safety Outcomes from Real-world Studies and Clinical Trials.
Review in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Conduction System Vs Surgical Left Ventricular Epicardial Pacing For Coronary Sinus Lead Failure
AV Nodal Ablation With Conduction System Pacing Versus Cardiac Resynchronization for Symptomatic Heart Failure Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The APAF-CSP All-cause Mortality and Quality of Life Trial
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Review.JAMA · 2026Review
- Depression and Anxiety in Patients Who Received a CRT Device and Did Not Have Shock Therapy During a 12-Month Follow-Up.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Article
- Physiological Pacing: Historical Review With an Eye to the Future.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Review
- Multipoint Left Ventricular Pacing as Alternative Approach in Cases of Biventricular Pacing Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Recent Advances in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Current Treatment and Future Direction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative Analysis of Response to Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Upgrades in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Pacemakers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Letter from the Editor in Chief.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important intervention in heart failure. Whether real-world complication rates mirror those reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is unknown. We sought to compare rates of procedural complications between major RCTs of CRT with "real-world" complication rates reported in registries and administrative claims database studies. We conducted a PubMed search to identify all relevant publications on CRT and classified them into RCTs and registry studies. Pooled procedural complication rates were analyzed. Differences between groups were compared using the chi-squared test. We identified a total of 6 RCTs, 2 administrative claims database studies, and 4 CRT registry studies. RCTs included a total of 4,442 patients and "real-world" studies included a total of 72,554 patients. The overall rates of procedural complications with CRT were significantly higher in RCTs compared to the real world (8.1% vs. 6.9%,
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.