ArticleESC heart failure2024
Calcium channel blockers and clinical outcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of internist-performed point-of-care ultrasound in atrial fibrillation: a multicenter study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Calcium channel blockers and clinical outcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsCurrent guidelines suggest calcium channel blockers (CCBs) as the second or third option for blood pressure management in patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). However, the clinical outcomes of patients with LVAD who receive CCBs remain unclear. Our study aims to analyse the association of CCBs with clinical outcomes in patients after LVAD implantation. METHODS AND
resultsThis is a retrospective analysis based on the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) from 2006 to 2017, and adult patients who were alive with LVAD and CCB treatment information at 6 months after implantation were included. Among 10 717 patients, 1369 received CCBs 6 months after implantation, and there was an increasing trend of CCB use after LVAD. Patients receiving CCB therapy at 6 months had a similar 5 year survival rate to those not receiving CCB [49.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 47.5-51.7% vs. 51.1%, 95% CI: 45.3-56.7%]. In both Cox and competing risk regressions after adjusting for confounding factors, CCB treatment at 6 months after implantation was not associated with long-term mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% CI: 0.91-1.17, P = 0.624 and subdistribution HR (SHR): 1.07, 95% CI: 0.95-1.22, P = 0.260]. Consistently, in time-varying models, CCB treatment was not linked to long-term mortality (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.87-1.09, P = 0.682 and SHR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.94-1.18, P = 0.359). This null association remained in subgroup analysis according to device strategy and propensity-matching analyses. Neurological dysfunction, stroke, bleeding, rehospitalization, and renal dysfunction were more likely to occur among those with CCB when compared with those without CCB treatment.
conclusionsIn patients with LVAD, CCB therapy fails to show benefits in long-term survival and is associated with increased incidences of neurological dysfunction, bleeding, renal dysfunction, and rehospitalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.