BACKGROUND: Numerous criteria believed to define a positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy have been used in the literature. No study has investigated agreement among these response criteria. We hypothesized that the agreement among the various response criteria would be poor. METHODS AND RESULTS: A literature search was conducted with the keywords "cardiac resynchronization" and "response." The 50 publications with the most citations were reviewed. After the exclusion of editorials and reviews, 17 different primary response criteria were identified from 26 relevant articles. The agreement among 15 of these 17 response criteria was assessed in 426 patients from the Predictors of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (PROSPECT) study with Cohen's kappa-coefficient (2 response criteria were not calculable from PROSPECT data). The overall response rate ranged from 32% to 91% for the 15 response criteria. Ninety-nine percent of patients showed a positive response according to at least 1 of the 15 criteria, whereas 94% were classified as a nonresponder by at least 1 criterion. kappa-Values were calculated for all 105 possible comparisons among the 15 response criteria and classified into standard ranges: Poor agreement (kappa< or =0.4), moderate agreement (0.4<kappa<0.75), and strong agreement (kappa> or =0.75). Seventy-five percent of the comparisons showed poor agreement, 21% showed moderate agreement, and only 4% showed strong agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The 26 most-cited publications on predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy define response using 17 different criteria. Agreement between different methods to define response to cardiac resynchronization therapy is poor 75% of the time and strong only 4% of the time, which severely limits the ability to generalize results over multiple studies.
BACKGROUND: Numerous criteria believed to define a positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy have been used in the literature. No study has investigated agreement among these response criteria. We hypothesized that the agreement among the various response criteria would be poor. METHODS AND RESULTS: A literature search was conducted with the keywords "cardiac resynchronization" and "response." The 50 publications with the most citations were reviewed. After the exclusion of editorials and reviews, 17 different primary response criteria were identified from 26 relevant articles. The agreement among 15 of these 17 response criteria was assessed in 426 patients from the Predictors of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (PROSPECT) study with Cohen's kappa-coefficient (2 response criteria were not calculable from PROSPECT data). The overall response rate ranged from 32% to 91% for the 15 response criteria. Ninety-nine percent of patients showed a positive response according to at least 1 of the 15 criteria, whereas 94% were classified as a nonresponder by at least 1 criterion. kappa-Values were calculated for all 105 possible comparisons among the 15 response criteria and classified into standard ranges: Poor agreement (kappa< or =0.4), moderate agreement (0.4<kappa<0.75), and strong agreement (kappa> or =0.75). Seventy-five percent of the comparisons showed poor agreement, 21% showed moderate agreement, and only 4% showed strong agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The 26 most-cited publications on predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy define response using 17 different criteria. Agreement between different methods to define response to cardiac resynchronization therapy is poor 75% of the time and strong only 4% of the time, which severely limits the ability to generalize results over multiple studies.
Authors: Kaoru Dohi; Matthew S Suffoletto; David Schwartzman; Leonard Ganz; Michael R Pinsky; John Gorcsan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-06-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Gabe B Bleeker; Jeroen J Bax; Jeffrey Wing-Hong Fung; Ernst E van der Wall; Qing Zhang; Martin J Schalij; Joseph Yat-Sun Chan; Cheuk-Man Yu Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-11-28 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: C-M Yu; Q Zhang; Y-S Chan; C-K Chan; G W K Yip; L C C Kum; E B Wu; P-W Lee; Y-Y Lam; S Chan; J W-H Fung Journal: Heart Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Ernesto Díaz-Infante; Lluís Mont; Juan Leal; Ignacio García-Bolao; Ignacio Fernández-Lozano; Antonio Hernández-Madrid; Nicasio Pérez-Castellano; Marta Sitges; Ricardo Pavón-Jiménez; Joaquín Barba; Miguel A Cavero; José L Moya; Leopoldo Pérez-Isla; Josep Brugada Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Sander G Molhoek; Jeroen J Bax; Gabe B Bleeker; Eric Boersma; L van Erven; Paul Steendijk; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Gabe B Bleeker; Theodorus A M Kaandorp; Hildo J Lamb; Eric Boersma; Paul Steendijk; Albert de Roos; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-02-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andrzej Rubaj; Piotr Ruciński; Krzysztof Oleszczak; Michał K Trojnar; Maciej Wójcik; Andrzej Wysokiński; Andrzej Kutarski Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 2.037