ArticleCirculation reports2025
Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Stratification Among Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices.
Article in Circulation reports, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) compared with those without, and are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases the risk of VA; however, selection of a suitable CRT device remains challenging. Methods and Results: In 678 patients with a CRT/ICD device and LV dysfunction, we investigated 325 CRT and 142 ICD patients for primary prevention. VA was defined as lasting ≥30 s or being treated with an ICD. CRT non-responders were defined as patients without reduced LV end-systolic volume ≥15%. During the follow-up period, 98 (21%) patients had a VA event (CRT 71 [22%] vs. ICD 27 [19%]; P=0.49). The VA risk score was calculated by summing values for non-left bundle branch block, left atrial diameter >45 mm, persistent atrial fibrillation, male sex, LV ejection fraction <25%, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our results showed that the VA risk score stratified the risk of VA among CRT patients (P<0.01), but was not significant for ICD patients (P=0.24). Patients with a VA risk score ≥4 (divided by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had a higher risk of VA among CRT patients (log rank P<0.01); however, it was not significant for ICD patients (log rank P=0.71). Conclusions: The VA risk score could be a useful indicator for VA among CRT candidates.
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.