Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Significance of effective cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing for clinical responses: An analysis based on the effective cardiac resynchronization therapy algorithm
Main finding · HF hospitalizationResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.12 95% CI 0.01–0.95Authors' conclusion
High %e-CRT is associated with high CRT responder prevalence and low HF hospitalization risk.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients using the adaptive and effective CRT algorithm with ventricular pacing > 90%of 136 consecutive CRT patients
- Participants
- 49 patients
- Exposure
- High vs low percent effective CRT pacing
- Effectiven = 25
- Less effectiven = 24reference
- Outcome
- Heart failure (HF) hospitalization
- Follow-up
- Median 507 days (IQR 335-730 days)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.12
95% CI 0.01–0.95
P = 0.045
Effectivevs Less effective
HR 0.12 (95% CI 0.01–0.95); P = 0.045
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
CRT responders (LVEF improvement ≥10% or LV end-systolic volume reduction ≥15%)
P < 0.001
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRT responders (LVEF improvement ≥10% or LV end-systolic volume reduction ≥15%)Univariate; %e-CRT ≥ 97.4% | 19.20 (3.63–101.00) | P < 0.001 | |
| 0.050.21520Odds ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Significance of effective cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing for clinical responses: An analysis based on the effective cardiac resynchronization therapy algorithm. Heart Rhythm. Published 10 June 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →