2013
DOI: 10.1161/circheartfailure.113.000183
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Response to Letter Regarding Article, “Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT)”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
70
3
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
70
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…22 Our meta-analysis contradicts these findings to some extent, as a clear benefit from CRT was shown in the AF group.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 61%
“…22 Our meta-analysis contradicts these findings to some extent, as a clear benefit from CRT was shown in the AF group.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 61%
“…[96][97][98][99][100][101][102] These broad recommendations are in principal in general agreement with the more comprehensive recommendations discussed in the CCS CRT guidelines. Values and preferences.…”
Section: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapymentioning
confidence: 75%
“…A sub‐analysis of the Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) assessed the efficacy of CRT in 229 patients in NYHA class II and III with permanent AF. All patients had low left ventricular ejection fraction (<30%) and wide QRS (>120 ms) and were randomized to CRT‐D or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) . After a follow‐up of 40 ± 18 months, no differences were observed between groups for the primary endpoint (death and heart failure hospitalizations) or cardiovascular deaths.…”
mentioning
confidence: 93%