English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a 20-year-old technology. Since its introduction, there has been considerable debate about the non-response rate, especially in view of the initial cost of the system and the need for a surgical procedure to implant it. In fact, the non-response rate, generally around 30%, is not so different from that of other therapies for heart failure (HF). There is much confusion about response to CRT. Firstly, it is highly dependent on the criteria used to define response; studies have shown that response rates range from 32% to 91% depending on the criteria used. Rates tend to be higher when subjective clinical measures are used, but much lower on outcome measures. Secondly, there is disagreement between different methods of assessing response. The lack of correlation between different ways of defining success, and their association with prognosis in terms of decreased mortality and morbidity, was first addressed by Yu et al., who demonstrated that increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was associated with longer survival but not with improvement in symptoms. Subsequently, Cha et al. concluded otherwise, demonstrating that clinical improvement influenced outcome but

Assessing response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: Time to settle on some definitive criteria