Key result
Multipoint pacing did not significantly improve echocardiographic outcomes compared to conventional CRT in randomized studies (OR 1.86; 95% CI 0.91-3.79; p=0.086).
Why the study?
Multipoint pacing has been proposed to improve cardiac resynchronisation therapy response, but its efficacy compared to conventional CRT required evaluation.
Does multipoint pacing improve echocardiographic and functional outcomes compared to conventional CRT in patients with heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,390)
Does multipoint pacing improve echocardiographic and functional outcomes compared to conventional CRT in patients with heart failure?
Odds Ratio: 1.86 (95% CI 0.91–3.79)
p-value: p=0.086
Multipoint pacing for CRT does not show significant superiority over conventional CRT in randomised studies, suggesting widespread MPP programming is currently not justified.
INTRODUCTION: Multipoint pacing (MPP) has been proposed as an effective way to improve cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) response. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of CRT delivered via MPP compared to conventional CRT. METHODS: A literature search was performed from inception to January 2021 for studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, comparing MPP to conventional CRT with a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Randomised and nonrandomised studies were assessed for relevant efficacy data including echocardiographic (left ventricular end systolic volume [LVESV] and ejection fraction) or functional changes (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class/Clinical Composite Score). Subgroup analyses were performed by study design and programming type. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies with a total of 1390 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, MPP demonstrated greater echocardiographic improvement than conventional CRT in nonrandomised studies (odds ratio [OR]: 5.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.05-9.33], p < .001), however, was not significant in randomised studies (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: [0.91-3.79], p = .086). There was no significant difference in LVESV reduction >15% (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: [0.69-5.55], p = .20) or improvement by ≥1 NYHA class (OR: 2.49, 95% CI: [0.74-8.42], p = .141) when comparing MPP to conventional CRT. In a sub analysis, MPP programmed by widest anatomical separation (MPP-AS) signalled greater efficacy, however, only 120 patients were included in this analysis. CONCLUSION: Overall MPP was more efficacious in nonrandomised studies, and not superior when assessed in randomised studies. There was considerable heterogeneity in study design making overall interpretation of results challenging. Widespread MPP programming in all CRT patients is currently not justified. Further large, randomised studies with patient-specific programming may clarify its effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mehta et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in heart failure (n=1,390). Multipoint pacing (MPP) vs. conventional CRT was evaluated on echocardiographic improvement in randomised studies (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91-3.79, p=0.086). Multipoint pacing did not significantly improve echocardiographic outcomes compared to conventional CRT in randomized studies (OR 1.86; 95% CI 0.91-3.79; p=0.086).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: