Key result
Cardiac resynchronization therapy showed no significant difference in the incidence of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization between patients with atrial fibrillation and those with sinus rhythm (p=0.87).
Why the study?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy provide similar clinical and echocardiographic benefits in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those with sinus rhythm?
Cohort (n=38)
No
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy provide similar clinical and echocardiographic benefits in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those with sinus rhythm?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CRT provides similar clinical and echocardiographic benefits in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those with sinus rhythm, provided a high biventricular pacing rate (>95%) is maintained using rate control medications.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sobue et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with intraventricular conduction delay (n=38). Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation vs. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with sinus rhythm was evaluated on Composite of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiac death (p=0.87). Cardiac resynchronization therapy showed no significant difference in the incidence of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization between patients with atrial fibrillation and those with sinus rhythm (p=0.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: