ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Long-term outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillators in elderly patients with heart failure.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWe aimed to describe the safety and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in elderly patients with heart failure. METHODS AND
resultsPatients with heart failure who received CRT or ICDs implantation for the first time from 2010 to 2021 were retrospectively studied. 48 of the 115 patients (41.7%) who underwent CRT implantation and 61 of the 174 patients (35.1%) who underwent ICDs implantation were ≥ 70 years old; these patients were defined as "elderly". The incidence of procedure-related complications was did not differ between elderly and young patients. The median follow-up times of the CRT group and ICDs group were 45 (30,74) and 51 (30,79) months, respectively. There was no significant difference in the superresponse rate, response rate, heart failure readmission rate, all-cause death rate, or cardiac death rate between elderly and young patients. The largest changes in LVEF and LVEDD occurred at 3 years after implantation, and the effect of reversing left ventricular remodeling lasted for five years after implantation. In the ICDs group, no significant difference was observed in the correct discharge ratio between elderly and young patients. However, elderly patients exhibited a significantly higher all-cause mortality rate compared to their younger counterparts (31% vs. 18%, P = 0.035). The survival curves diverged after 5 years, yet no statistically significant difference was found in cardiac death rates between the two groups (16% vs. 14%, P = 0.522). The COX regression model suggested that age ≥ 70 years old and chronic kidney disease were independent risk factors for all-cause death (HR = 1.963, 3.165, P = 0.041, 0.003), while LVEF ≤ 20% was an independent risk factor for cardiac death (HR = 3.562, P = 0.004).
conclusionImplantation of CRT and ICDs in elderly patients with heart failure is safe. Age should not be a criterion for preventing CRT implantation. The prognosis of ICDs implantation in elderly patients is strongly affected by noncardiogenic factors, and the long-term benefit is worse than that in young patients.
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.