SynthesisHeart failure reviews2024
Anti-bradycardia pacing-impact on patients with HFpEF: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has become an emerging concern. The protective effect of bradycardia in patients with reduced ejection fraction using beta-blockers or ivabradine does not improve symptoms in HFpEF. This review aims to assess current data regarding the impact of anti-bradycardia pacing in patients with HFpEF. A search was conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Wiley Online Library, selecting studies from 2013 to 2023. Relevant and eligible prospective studies and randomized controlled trials were included. Functional status, quality of life, and echocardiographic parameters were assessed. Six studies conformed to the selection criteria. Four were prospective studies with a total of 90 patients analyzed. Two were randomized controlled trials with a total of 129 patients assessed. The 6-min walk test (6MWT) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score improved in all prospective studies. My-PACE trial showed improvements in MLHFQ score (p < 0.001), significant relative lowering in NT-proBNP levels (p = 0.02), and an increased mean daily activity in the personalized accelerated pacing group compared to usual care. RAPID-HF trial proved that pacemaker implantation to enhance exercise heart rate (HR) did not improve exercise capacity and was associated with increased adverse events. HFpEF requires a more individualized approach and quality of life management. This review demonstrates that higher resting HR by atrial pacing may improve symptoms and even outcomes in HFpEF, while a higher adaptive rate during exertion has not been proven beneficial.
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.