ArticleScientific reports2024
Resting heart rate assessed within clinical practice demonstrates no prognostic relevance for defibrillator recipients in the German DEVICE registry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resting heart rate (RHR) has prognostic implications in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, where ≤ 70 bpm is targeted. Whether a RHR > 70 bpm assessed within clinical practice goes along with elevated cardiovascular risk in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) / cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients remains incompletely understood. A total of 1589 patients (ICD n = 1172 / CRT-D n = 417, median age 65 years, 22.6% female) undergoing ICD/CRT-D implantation or revision in the prospective German DEVICE multicenter registry were analyzed. RHR was assessed via a 12-channel electrocardiogram at enrollment. 1-year outcomes (all-cause mortality, major cardio- and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause hospital admission) were compared between patients with a RHR ≤ 70 bpm and > 70 bpm. 733 patients (46.1%) showed a RHR > 70 bpm. Median RHR was 63 (interquartile range 59; 68) bpm (≤ 70 bpm group) and 80 (75; 89) bpm (> 70 bpm group). Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was present in 76.3%, a prior myocardial infarction in 32.4% and non-ischemic heart disease in 44.9%. One-year all-cause mortality was similar between RHR groups (≤ 70 bpm 5.4% vs. > 70 bpm 5.4%, p = 0.96), and subgroup analysis regarding patient characteristics and comorbidities revealed only a significantly higher rate of patients with dual chamber ICD in the > 70 bpm group (0.8% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.003). MACCE (5.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.87) and defibrillator shock rates (9.9% vs. 9.8%, p = 1.0) were similar. Higher all-cause hospital admission rates were observed in patients with > 70 bpm RHR (23.1% vs. 29.0%, p = 0.027) driven by non-cardiovascular events (6.0% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, in ICD and CRT-D recipients a RHR at admission > 70 bpm may indicate patients at increased risk of all-cause hospital admission but not of other adverse cardiovascular events or death at 1-year follow-up.
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.