Skip to main content

Table 4 Subgroup analysis for the association of CRT response between groups for each variable

From: Comparative efficacy of image-guided techniques in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis

Variable

Subgroups

No. of studies

No. of patients CRT response (Total)

Test of relationship

Heterogeneity (%)

p value for heterogeneity

p value between subgroups

RR (95%CI)

p value

Country

United states or Europe

6

542 (883)

1.37 (1.23–1.52)

< 0.01

0

0.76

0.24

Asia

1

123 (177)

1.20 (0.98–1.46)

< 0.01

–

–

 

Study design

RCT

4

444 (728)

1.30 (1.15–1.46)

< 0.01

0

0.57

0.39

observational

3

221 (332)

1.41 (1.21–1.65)

< 0.01

0

0.66

 

LVEF (%)

≥ 25

4

341 (570)

1.39 (1.21–1.60)

< 0.01

12

0.33

0.37

< 25

3

324 (490)

1.33 (1.21–1.45)

< 0.01

0

0.98

 

LVESV (ml)

≥ 150

4

447 (667)

1.25 (1.13–1.40)

< 0.01

0

0.95

0.08

< 150

3

218 (393)

1.52 (1.26–1.84)

< 0.01

0

0.78

 

Techniques

ECHO

3

389 (584)

1.32 (1.17–1.48)

< 0.01

0

0.5

0.73

Non-ECHO

4

276 (476)

1.36 (1.17–1.59)

< 0.01

0

0.52

 
  1. RR, risk ratio; ECHO, Echocardiography; other abbreviations as in Table. 2