Key result
SyncAV with either BiV or LV-only MPP yields comparable 6-month CRT response.
Why the study?
Dynamic atrioventricular delays and multi-site LV pacing may enhance CRT response, but their combined impact had not been evaluated in a chronic clinical setting.
Does biventricular multi-site pacing with dynamic AV delays improve echocardiographic and clinical response compared to LV-only multi-site pacing with dynamic AV delays in CRT-indicated patients with LBBB?
Does biventricular multi-site pacing with dynamic AV delays improve echocardiographic and clinical response compared to LV-only multi-site pacing with dynamic AV delays in CRT-indicated patients with LBBB?
Both biventricular and LV-only multi-site pacing combined with dynamic AV delays yielded promising and comparable 6-month echocardiographic and clinical responses in CRT-indicated patients with LBBB.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports either BiV or LV-only MPP with SyncAV in LBBB CRT; extends evidence on multipoint pacing with dynamic AV delays.
BACKGROUND: The response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can depend on when and where the right and left ventricles (RV, LV) are paced. Dynamic atrioventricular (AV) delays (SyncAV CRT, Abbott) and multi-site LV pacing (e.g., MultiPoint Pacing [MPP], Abbott) are features that may enhance CRT response. Their combined impact has not been evaluated in a chronic clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the 6-month echocardiographic and clinical response to SyncAV when combined with either biventricular MPP (MPP+SyncAV: RV + LV1 + LV2 pacing) or LV-only MPP (LVMPP+SyncAV: LV1 + LV2 pacing). METHODS: CRT-indicated patients with LBBB and intact AV conduction (PR < 250 ms) were implanted and randomized to either MPP+SyncAV or LVMPP+SyncAV in an international, multi-center clinical study. Patient-specific SyncAV offsets were selected to minimize QRS duration at implant. The following response metrics were captured at baseline and 6 months post-implant: LV end-systolic volume (ESV), LV ejection fraction (EF), NYHA class, quality of life score (QoL), and Packer score. RESULTS: CRT implant and 6-month visits were completed in 70 patients (69 years old, 73% male, 179 ms PR, 164 ms QRS). MPP+SyncAV (n = 36) and LVMPP+SyncAV (n = 34) groups demonstrated comparable 6-month response magnitudes and responder rates for ΔESV ≤ -15% (85% vs. 74%) and ΔEF ≥ 5% (94% vs. 77%), as well as improvements in NYHA class (43% vs. 47%), QoL (59% vs. 64%), and Packer score (70% vs. 70%); p > 0.05 for all. CONCLUSIONS: The 6-month echocardiographic (ESV, EF) and clinical (NYHA class, QoL, Packer) response rates observed in LBBB patients were promising when SyncAV was combined with MPP, in both biventricular and LV-only pacing modes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03567096.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thibault et al. (2026) studied this question. SyncAV combined with either biventricular or LV-only MultiPoint Pacing yielded comparable 6-month CRT response with LVESV and LVEF responders.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: