Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,161

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial

Open access
Chung, Eugene S., Leon, Angel R., Tavazzi, Luigi, Sun, Jing-Ping, Nihoyannopoulos, Petros, Merlino, John, Abraham, William T., Ghio, Stefano, Leclercq, Christophe, Bax, Jeroen J., Yu, Cheuk-Man, Gorcsan, John, St John Sutton, Martin, De Sutter, Johan, Murillo, Jaime·2008·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Data from single-center studies suggest that echocardiographic parameters of mechanical dyssynchrony may improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In a prospective, multicenter setting, the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) study tested the performance of these parameters to predict CRT response. Methods and Results— Fifty-three centers in Europe, Hong Kong, and the United States enrolled 498 patients with standard CRT indications (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS ≥130 ms, stable medical regimen). Twelve echocardiographic parameters of dyssynchrony, based on both conventional and tissue Doppler–based methods, were evaluated after site training in acquisition methods and blinded core laboratory analysis. Indicators of positive CRT response were improved clinical composite score and ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months. Clinical composite score was improved in 69% of 426 patients, whereas left ventricular end-systolic volume decreased ≥15% in 56% of 286 patients with paired data. The ability of the 12 echocardiographic parameters to predict clinical composite score response varied widely, with sensitivity ranging from 6% to 74% and specificity ranging from 35% to 91%; for predicting left ventricular end-systolic volume response, sensitivity ranged from 9% to 77% and specificity from 31% to 93%. For all the parameters, the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve for positive clinical or volume response to CRT was ≤0.62. There was large variability in the analysis of the dyssynchrony parameters. Conclusion— Given the modest sensitivity and specificity in this multicenter setting despite training and central analysis, no single echocardiographic measure of dyssynchrony may be recommended to improve patient selection for CRT beyond current guidelines. Efforts aimed at reducing variability arising from technical and interpretative factors may improve the predictive power of these echocardiographic parameters in a broad clinical setting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.107.743120

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 2,161

Metadata

Authors
Chung, E. S., Leon, A. R., Tavazzi, L., Sun, J.-P., Nihoyannopoulos, P., Merlino, J., Abraham, W. T., Ghio, S., Leclercq, C., Bax, J. J., Yu, C.-M., Gorcsan, J., St John Sutton, M., De Sutter, J., & Murillo, J.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2008-05-20
Volume
117
Issue
20
Pages
2608-2616
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2100056258
Cited by
2,161
References
3
FWCI
163.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.107.743120
The paper
Chung, E. S., Leon, A. R., Tavazzi, L., Sun, J.-P., Nihoyannopoulos, P., Merlino, J., Abraham, W. T., Ghio, S., Leclercq, C., Bax, J. J., Yu, C.-M., Gorcsan, J., St John Sutton, M., De Sutter, J., & Murillo, J. (2008). Results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.743120

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.