Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Editor

Personal info

View

About

Terms

Javascript disabled

Please enable Javascript support in your browser to use this application.

Instructions on how to enable JavaScript on different browsers can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23852.

[edit this page]

Nägele, H. et al.

Herbert Nägele, Julia Dodeck, Stefan Behrens, Mojgan Azizi, Sandra Hashagen, Christine Eisermann, Maria A. Castel,

Hemodynamics and prognosis after primary cardiac resynchronization system implantation compared to "upgrade" procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle brunch block (LBBB) and right ventricular stimulation (RVS) may be associated with asynchrony and heart failure. Differences between these two entities and their response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are not well defined. METHODS: Patients receiving CRT from 1999 to 2006 were analyzed for cardiac events and prognosis separated between primary implants for LBBB (n = 221) and upgrades from RVS (n = 107). A subgroup of 105 patients (LBBB = 69; RVS = 36) was studied in more detail (New York Heart Association [NYHA], quality of life, brain natriuretic peptide, peak VO2, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], wedge pressure, Cardiac Index, QRS, left-right preejection period using pulsed wave doppler, septum-lateral wall motion delay using tissue doppler imaging) at baseline and after 1 year. RESULTS: Age (68.4 +/- 11 years vs 68.7 +/- 15 years, n. s.), NYHA class (3.1 vs 3.1, n. s.), LVEF (26.4 vs 28.1, n. s.), and clinical parameters were comparable between LBBB and RVS. The latter group consisted of more patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (14% vs 37%, P = 0.03). After 1 year, NYHA class (-0.8 +/- 0.8 vs -0.6 +/- 0.8, n. s.), LVEF (+13.7 +/- 14% vs +8.7 +/- 10%, n. s.), and clinical parameters improved similarly. After a median follow-up of 2.33 +/- 1.8 years in the LBBB versus 2.43 +/- 1.9 years in the RVS group, there was no difference in long-term prognosis or cardiac events in the total cohort (5-year event rate, 53% vs 55%, P = n. s.). CONCLUSION: Upgrade patients showed similar baseline parameters and response to CRT as to primary implants. No difference in events or long-term prognosis could be observed.[1]

References

Hemodynamics and prognosis after primary cardiac resynchronization system implantation compared to "upgrade" procedures. Nägele, H., Dodeck, J., Behrens, S., Azizi, M., Hashagen, S., Eisermann, C., Castel, M.A. Pacing. Clin. Electrophysiol (2008) [Pubmed]

Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenes Open Access Licence Privacy Policy Terms of Use apsburg

The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.