ArticleESC heart failure2026
Cardiac remodelling and functional status after cardiac resynchronization therapy: comparison between de-novo implantation and upgrade from right ventricular pacing.
Article in ESC heart failure, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPatients with heart failure induced by chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing commonly undergo upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the effect size of improvement in cardiac function and functional capacity between patients with RV pacing and intrinsic conduction at baseline.
methodsWe included patients from the ImagingCRT, ElectroCRT and DANISH-CRT trials aged ≥40 years with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and prolonged QRS. The primary endpoint was change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints included change in QRS duration, echocardiographic measures (LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular mass index, and left atrial volume index), N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, six-minute walk test, quality of life, New York Heart Association functional class and loop diuretic use.
resultsWe included 592 patients [mean age 70.7 ± 9 years; 24.8% women; mean LVEF 27 ± 6%; 97 (16.4%) with RV pacing and 495 (83.6%) with intrinsic conduction at baseline]. We found significant relative reduction in LVESV in patients with RV pacing (-34 ± 25%) and intrinsic conduction (-32 ± 26%) with no difference between the groups [mean difference -2%, 95% CI (-8; 4), P = .469]. Absolute LVEF improvement was 14 ± 9% and 13 ± 10%, respectively. Reduction in QRS duration was larger with RV pacing compared with intrinsic conduction (-38 ± 26 vs -26 ± 24 ms). We found significant improvements in the remaining secondary endpoints, with no difference between the groups.
conclusionPatients with RV paced QRS morphology who are upgraded to CRT derive substantial improvement in cardiac function and functional capacity, comparable to patients with intrinsic conduction undergoing CRT.
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.