SynthesisESC heart failure2024
Emergent role of dynamic optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emergent role of dynamic optimization in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsSuboptimal device programming is frequent in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the role of device optimization and the most appropriate technique are still unknown. The aim of our study was to analyse the effect of different CRT optimization techniques within a network meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for studies comparing outcomes with empirical device settings or optimization using echocardiography, static algorithms or dynamic algorithms. Studies investigating the effect of optimization in non-responders were also analysed.
resultsA total of 17 studies with 4346 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of the treatments and outcomes examined, a significant difference was found only between dynamic algorithms and echocardiography, with the former leading to a higher echocardiographic response rate [odds ratio (OR): 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-3.35], lower heart failure hospitalization rate (OR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.99) and greater improvement in 6-minute walk test [mean difference (MD): 45.52 m, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3.91-82.44 m]. We found no significant difference between empirical settings, static algorithms and dynamic algorithms. Seven studies with 228 patients reported response rates after optimization in non-responders. Altogether, 34.3%-66.7% of initial non-responders showed improvement after optimization, depending on response criteria.
conclusionsAt the time of CRT implantation, dynamic algorithms may serve as a resource-friendly alternative to echocardiographic optimization, with similar or better mid-term outcomes. However, their superiority over empirical device settings needs to be investigated in further trials. For non-responders, CRT optimization should be considered, as the majority of patients experience improvement.
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.