What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Review. Population: Recalcitrant heart failure. Intervention: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Conventional treatment methods.

May 11, 2026

A Study of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) in Recalcitrant Heart Failure

Key Result

Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduced all-cause mortality by 36% compared to conventional treatment in patients with recalcitrant heart failure.

PICO

Population

Recalcitrant heart failure

Intervention / Comparator

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs Conventional treatment methods

Limitations

Difficulty of implanting left ventricular electrodes due to anatomical variations in 10-15% of patients
Electrode dislocation with an incidence of 1.7%-13.6%
Infection risk with an incidence of 1-2%

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

Discussion

Authors

Shi Wenqi

Journals

Biomedical Data Science

Actions

References and Citations

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

Discussion

Cite this study

Shi Wenqi (Wed,) conducted a review in Recalcitrant heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Conventional treatment methods was evaluated. Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduced all-cause mortality by 36% compared to conventional treatment in patients with recalcitrant heart failure.

www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a025f2ec9581ed855361d3c — DOI: https://doi.org/10.47297/wspbdswsp2752-630519.20250504

A Study of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) in Recalcitrant Heart Failure

Key Result

PICO

Limitations

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Authors

Journals

Actions

References and Citations

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Cite this study