ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy or right ventricular pacing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. 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.
- Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients with Pure Aortic Regurgitation after TAVI.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPermanent pacemaker implantation (PMI) is associated with increased morbidity after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cardiac resynchronization-therapy (CRT) is recommended for patients if left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is ≤ 40% and ventricular pacing is expected in favor to sole right ventricular (RV) pacing. Meanwhile, LVEF may recover after TAVR in patients with aortic valve disease and the benefit of CRT is unknown.
objectiveTo analyze the impact of CRT implantation as compared to RV pacing after TAVR. METHODS AND
resultsBetween 2012 and 2022, 4385 patients (53.1% female, mean age 81 ± 6 years) without prior PMI undergoing TAVR were retrospectively identified in our institutional registry. After stratification of patients in LVEF ≤ 40%, 41-49% and ≥ 50%, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significantly different survival rates in each subgroup at 5 years (37.0% vs. 43.5% vs. 55.1%; P ≤ 0.021). At multivariate regression, LVEF and new PMI after TAVR were not relevant for survival. A total of 105 patients with LVEF ≤ 40% received PMI after TAVR (86 patients with RV pacing and 19 with CRT). At 5 years, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with CRT-device as compared to patients without CRT-device (Kaplan Meier estimate of 21.1% vs. 48.8%; HR 0.48, CI 0.204 - 1.128; log rank p = 0.045). In multivariate analysis CRT remained a significant factor for 5-year survival in these patients (HR 0.3, CI 0.095-0.951, p = 0.041).
conclusionIn patients undergoing TAVR, PMI did not influence 5-year survival. In patients with LVEF ≤ 40%, CRT-device implantation was associated with improved survival compared to non-CRT-device implantation.
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.