ArticleKorean circulation journal2025
Real-World Effectiveness of Adaptive Left Ventricular-Only Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Asian Population: Insights From the K-Adaptive CRT Study.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2025. 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.
- Beyond Biventricular Pacing: Revisiting CRT Strategies in the Asian Heart Failure Population.Korean circulation journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesConflicting results have been reported regarding the efficacy of left ventricular-only pacing (LVP) synchronized with intrinsic right ventricular conduction (adaptive LVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in Western heart failure (HF) populations. We compared adaptive LVP with conventional biventricular pacing (BVP) in Asian HF patients.
methodsThe K-adaptive CRT study, the largest adaptive CRT study to date in Asian HF patients, evaluated 368 HF patients who received CRT devices with an adaptive pacing algorithm between September 2013 and March 2020 from 25 tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to their pacing configuration: adaptive LVP (n=160), adaptive BVP (n=86), and conventional BVP groups (n=122). Primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.
resultsDuring the mean 3.7-year follow-up period, incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower in the adaptive LVP group than the conventional BVP group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.85; p=0.007), while outcomes in the adaptive and conventional BVP groups were comparable. Patients with higher LVP% (≥65%) showed a further reduction in relative risk of the primary outcome (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76; p=0.005). Adaptive LVP was consistently associated with a lower risk of clinical outcomes in various subgroup analyses, and was identified as an independent factor for favorable long-term outcomes.
conclusionsThe K-adaptive CRT study suggests that adaptive LVP is associated with better clinical outcomes than conventional BVP in Asian HF 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.