Sex Specific Outcomes With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Symptomatic Heart Failure Having Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged instrumental in managing heart failure. Notably, there is a lack of evidence of CRT efficacy among both sexes. Thus, this meta-analysis focuses on the long-term benefits of CRT in both sexes. PubMed, The Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for articles from 2010 to 2024. ROB2 was used to assess risk of bias of RCTs. Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality appraisal of cohorts. Meta-analysis was conducted on Revman 5.4. Out of 2722 articles, only 9 RCTs and 18 cohorts were included. Our results demonstrated that females had a significantly lower risk of composite outcomes compared to males in both RCTs (RR 0.80; 95% CI [0.68, 0.94], P = .006) and cohorts (RR 0.76; 95% CI [0.63, 0.92], P = .004). Results were similar for all-cause mortality. For heart failure hospitalization, only cohorts showed a significant lesser risk in females (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.65, 0.93], P = .006). Left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly in females but no differences were observed for NYHA class improvement. Males showed a 31% lower survival rate. However future trials are needed to highlight this variation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".