ArticleCurrent cardiology reviews2025
Trends in Readmissions Rates and Mortality after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy.
Article in Current cardiology reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdvances in cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIED) have significantly improved outcomes for patients with heart failure. However, there is a bereft of recent real- world data on the relative effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacing and defibrillator (CRT-D) and continuous resynchronization therapy with pacing (CRT-P) in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). We hypothesized that the addition of defibrillation therapy in patients with NICM would offer no significant benefit.
methodsWe searched the National Readmissions Database (NRD) from 2016-2020 to identify hospitalizations with NICM using appropriate ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes. The cohort was further divided into groups with NICM and CRT-D implantation and NICM with CRTP implantation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Our final cohort included 8,801 hospitalizations with NICM and CRTD implantation and 3,399 hospitalizations with NICM and CRT-P implantation. Propensity matching was performed using comorbidities through multivariate logistic regression. Two thousand nine hundred seventeen hospitalizations were included in each of the two groups, CRT-D and CRT-P. Analysis of the propensity-matched cohorts at 180 days revealed a trend toward lower heart failure readmission, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality rates in the group with CRT-P implantation. However, there was no difference noted in the 180-day hazard ratios of HF readmission [1.08 (0.98-1.19); p = 0.1], all-cause readmission [1.04 (0.87- 1.12); p = 0.23], and all-cause mortality [0.83 (0.58-1.19); p = 0.32].
conclusionIt was found that NICM patients with CRT-D have a trend towards higher HF readmissions, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality compared to those with CRT-P, but no significant difference was noted in hazard ratios. The findings of our study raise further questions about the need for defibrillator therapy in patients with NICM and merit further studies to better select candidates for each of these therapies.
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.