ArticleAge and ageing2023
Outcomes following cardiac resynchronisation therapy in older people.
Article in Age and ageing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise Capacity and the Force Frequency Relationship in Multi-Point Versus Single-Point Pacing: A Randomized Trial.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Trial
- Longevity and Innovation: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in a 100-Year-Old Patient With Severe Heart Failure-A 4-Year Follow-Up.Case reports in cardiology · 2026Article
- [Left ventricular electrode placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Current Treatment and Future Direction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current and future landscape of cardiogeriatrics.Future cardiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOlder patients may be less likely to receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for the management of heart failure. We aimed to describe the differences in clinical response, complications, and subsequent outcomes following CRT implantation compared to younger patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of unselected, consecutive patients implanted with CRT devices between March 2008 and July 2017. We recorded complications, symptomatic and echocardiographic response, hospitalisation for heart failure, and all-cause mortality comparing patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years.
resultsFive hundred and seventy-four patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 68-81], 73.3% male) received CRT. At baseline, patients aged ≥80 years had worse symptoms, were more likely to have co-morbidities, and less likely to be receiving comprehensive medical therapy, although left ventricular function was similar. Older patients were less likely to receive CRT-defibrillators compared to CRT-pacemakers. Complications were infrequent and not more common in older patients. Age was not a predictor of symptomatic or echocardiographic response to CRT (67.2%, 71.2% and 62.6% responders in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P = 0.43), and time to first heart failure hospitalisation was similar across age groups (P = 0.28). Ten-year survival was lower for older patients (49.9%, 23.9% and 6.8% in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe benefits of CRT on symptoms and left ventricular function were not different in older patients despite a greater burden of co-morbidities and less optimal medical therapy. These findings support the use of CRT in an ageing population.
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.