Why the study?
Approximately 30% of patients do not improve with CRT and are traditionally classified as nonresponders, prompting the need to assess the impact of a more detailed response classification on survival.
Does a detailed classification of response to CRT (Improved, Stabilized, Worsened) better predict 5-year all-cause mortality in patients with mild heart failure compared to traditional binary classification?
Does a detailed classification of response to CRT (Improved, Stabilized, Worsened) better predict 5-year all-cause mortality in patients with mild heart failure compared to traditional binary classification?
Patients who stabilize early with CRT have a much better prognosis than those who worsen, suggesting that the traditional binary 'responder/nonresponder' classification should be modified to recognize stabilization as a positive outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Worsening by both CCS and LVESVi identifies highest-risk CRT patients; hypothesis-generating for tripartite response classification in mild HF.
Gold et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: