Observational studyClinical cardiology2026
The Barthel Index in Predicting Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2026. 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.
- The Barthel Index in Predicting Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure.Clinical cardiology · 2026Observational
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
Abstract
backgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response in heart failure (HF) patients is multifactorial, with limited data on its association with activities of daily living assessed by the Barthel index (BI).
objectiveThis prospective observational study investigated the predictive value of BI for CRT response and long-term clinical outcomes in non-ischemic HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB).
methodsA total of 271 consecutive non-ischemic HF patients undergoing CRT with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and LBBB were enrolled. BI was evaluated pre-implantation. The primary endpoint was CRT response (absolute LVEF improvement ≥ 5% at 6 months). The secondary composite endpoint included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization (HFH).
resultsAmong 249 patients completing 6-month follow-up, the CRT response rate was 68.67%. Multivariate logistic regression identified BI (per 5-point increment; OR = 1.37, 95% CI:1.12-1.67, p = 0.002) as an independent predictor of CRT response, with an optimal cutoff of 95. Combining BI with left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left bundle branch area pacing achieved the highest predictive efficacy (AUC = 0.78). Over a median 33.94-month follow-up, BI > 95 was associated with an 88% reduced risk of the composite endpoint (adjusted HR = 0.116, p < 0.001), driven primarily by marked HFH reduction. A non-significant trend toward lower all-cause mortality was observed, accompanied by sustained LVEF improvement (29.81% ± 5.01% to 51.71% ± 11.30%).
conclusionBI might be a simple, cost-effective independent predictor for CRT response and improved LVEF and prognosis in non-ischemic HF patients with LBBB.
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.