ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2026
Is Resynchronization Pacing Proarrhythmic Among Congenital Heart Patients? An Evaluation and Review.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be an effective form of heart failure (HF) management among congenital heart disease (CHD) patients (pts) with and without surgically repaired defects. However, very long-term results are limited. Recently, CRT has been implicated to be proarrhythmic among older CRT recipients. This issue is largely unknown among younger CHD-CRT pts. This study presents up to a 20-year (y) continuous review of any arrhythmia (Arr) burden associated with CRT among CHD-HF pts.
methodsFrom 1999 to 2024, outcomes of 45 CHD-HF pts (NYHA II-IV) (age 4-57 y [mean 26]; 31% female) were compared between those on established medical management (MM) (
resultsFollow-up was for 1 to 20 y (mean 7.5 y ± 0.7 sem). Patient demographics (CRT vs. MM groups) were comparable. Pre-existing Arr were found in 16 pts (38%) from both groups: accelerated junction (one CRT), atrial flutter (one CRT; two MM), and ventricular tachycardia (six CRT; six MM). During follow-up, outcomes included 14 pt deaths and 7 heart transplants (HTs). Of these, pre-existing Arr were causative among three CRT recipients: two ≤ 2 y and one > 5 y after CRT. There were no new-onset Arr in any pt groups. CRT significantly improved patient survival free from HT or death at 10 y (44 vs. 13% [
conclusionWhen applied effectively, CRT benefits CHD-HF pts without causing additional arrhythmias. However, pre-existing Arr remain a concern reflecting persistently adverse intrinsic myocellular issues among CHD-HF pts.
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.