Why the study?
The relationship between left ventricular reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy remains to be fully characterized.
Do clinical, morphological, functional features and mortality differ among patients with different values of left ventricular reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Observational (n=112)
Do clinical, morphological, functional features and mortality differ among patients with different values of left ventricular reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Truncated abstract yields no CRT outcome data; leaves open whether LV reverse remodeling extent affects mortality or features.
AIM: To evaluate clinical, morphological, functional features and mortality level in patients with different value of left ventricular reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study enrolled 112 patients (mean age 54.6±9.9 years, 83.5% men) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) І35%, NYHA functional class II-IV. We enrolled patients with QRS width >120 ms or QRS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Кузнецов et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=112). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Different values of left ventricular reverse remodeling was evaluated on Clinical, morphological, functional features and mortality level.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: