Key result
Multipoint pacing shows no hemodynamic benefit over conventional single-point pacing for CRT.
Why the study?
Up to one-third of CRT patients are nonresponders, and while multipoint bicathodic and cathodic-anodal LV stimulations could address this, their effectiveness remains controversial.
Does multipoint bicathodic and cathodic-anodal pacing improve hemodynamic and electrical parameters compared to conventional single point biventricular pacing in CRT candidates?
Does multipoint bicathodic and cathodic-anodal pacing improve hemodynamic and electrical parameters compared to conventional single point biventricular pacing in CRT candidates?
Multipoint bicathodic and cathodic-anodal pacing yield comparable CRT performance to conventional single-point biventricular pacing without consistent hemodynamic improvement.
Up to one-third of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are nonresponders. Multipoint bicathodic and cathodic-anodal left ventricle (LV) stimulations could overcome this clinical challenge, but their effectiveness remains controversial. Here we evaluate the performance of such stimulations through both in vivo and in silico experiments, the latter based on computer electromechanical modeling. Seven patients, all candidates for CRT, received a quadripolar LV lead. Four stimulations were tested: right ventricular (RVS); conventional single point biventricular (S-BS); multipoint biventricular bicathodic (CC-BS) and multipoint biventricular cathodic-anodal (CA-BS). The following parameters were processed: QRS duration; maximal time derivative of arterial pressure (dPdtmax); systolic arterial pressure (Psys); and stroke volume (SV). Echocardiographic data of each patient were then obtained to create an LV geometric model. Numerical simulations were based on a strongly coupled Bidomain electromechanical coupling model. Considering the in vivo parameters, when comparing S-BS to RVS, there was no significant decrease in SV (from 45 ± 11 to 44 ± 20 ml) and 6% and 4% increases of dPdtmax and Psys, respectively. Focusing on in silico parameters, with respect to RVS, S-BS exhibited a significant increase of SV, dPdtmax and Psys. Neither the in vivo nor in silico results showed any significant hemodynamic and electrical difference among S-BS, CC-BS and CA-BS configurations. These results show that CC-BS and CA-BS yield a comparable CRT performance, but they do not always yield improvement in terms of hemodynamic parameters with respect to S-BS. The computational results confirmed the in vivo observations, thus providing theoretical support to the clinical experiments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dell’Era et al. (2021) studied Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates (n=7). Multipoint biventricular bicathodic (CC-BS) and cathodic-anodal (CA-BS) pacing vs. Conventional single point biventricular (S-BS) and right ventricular stimulation (RVS) was evaluated on Hemodynamic and electrical parameters (QRS duration, dPdtmax, Psys, and stroke volume). Multipoint bicathodic and cathodic-anodal pacing yielded comparable cardiac resynchronization therapy performance to conventional single-point pacing, with no significant hemodynamic differences.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: