ArticleIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal
Arrhythmic and mortality outcomes in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy without defibrillator.
Article in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting adverse outcomes in dilated cardiomyopathy using 3D echocardiography: penalised Cox regression versus machine learning.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe routine implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators in all patients who are candidates for this treatment is now being negotiated, mainly in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.
objectiveWe investigated the arrhythmic and mortality outcomes following CRT implantation in DCM, as well as the necessity for defibrillator capabilities in that particular group of patients.
methodswe included 67- patients with DCM with EF ≤ 35%, QRS duration >130 msec and NYHA class II-IV, or those with EF ≤ 35% with indications of permanent pacing for implantation of CRT-P. Patients were followed to obtain good CRT response. Improved clinical outcomes were defined as improvement in at least one NYHA class, ≥5% increase in LVEF, and ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume versus baseline. Patients were classified into responder and non-responder. Patients were followed for 36 months regarding all-cause morbidity mainly ventricular tachycardia and all-cause mortality.
resultsCRT responder patients had better clinical outcomes than CRT non-responder patients (post NYHA, 1.3 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6, p < 0.0001; post LVEF 30.0 ± 1.6 vs. 20.3 ± 2.2%, p < 0.0001; LVESV, 151.7 ± 7.6 vs. 190.4 ± 9.0 ml, p < 0.0001), with lower ventricular arrhythmia (p < 0.0001), lower mortality (p = 0.015) and lower all-cause morbidity (p < 0.001). This survival advantage may be related to the response to CRT response determined by clinical and echocardiographic parameters over a 36-month period of follow-up.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that CRT-P implantation without defibrillation backup is an encouraging treatment option for patients with DCM, principally those who responded to it. It may result in cost savings, a decrease in complications, and an improvement in all-cause morbidity, particularly ventricular arrhythmia and survival.
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.