Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure is comprehensively reviewed, focusing on major clinical trials, current indications, controversies, and emerging technologies.
Why the study?
While cardiac resynchronization therapy is an accepted heart failure treatment, evidence is continuously evolving regarding novel indications, optimization of lead placement and programming, and emerging competing technologies.
This review provides a clinical perspective on major trials, current indications, controversies, and emerging aspects of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the treatment of heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Offers synthesized CRT perspective for HF clinicians; leaves open optimal patient selection amid controversies and emerging technologies.
Despite improved understanding of heart failure (HF) and advances in medical treatments, its prevalence continues to rise, and the role of implantable devices continues to evolve. While cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted form of treatment for many suffering from HF, there is an ever-evolving body of evidence examining novel indications, optimization of lead placement and device programming, with several competing technologies now also on the horizon. This review aims to take a clinical perspective on the major trials, current indications, controversies and emerging aspects of CRT in the treatment of HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moskovitch et al. (2019) conducted a review in Heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy was evaluated. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure is comprehensively reviewed, focusing on major clinical trials, current indications, controversies, and emerging technologies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: