Key result
Optimized left ventricular pacing combined with multipoint pacing increased end-systolic volume index response compared to standard CRT (90% vs 56%, P=0.004).
Why the study?
Does optimization of left ventricular pacing site plus multipoint pacing improve remodeling and clinical response in patients with heart failure treated with CRT?
Population
110 patients with heart failure (HF) treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)
Comparison
CRT with hemodynamic and electrical optimization… vs Conventional CRT (standard [STD] group, n=54)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
nearly 1 year
Authors
Loading...
May improve volumetric response with optimized MPP; hypothesis-generating and requires RCT confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=110)
Does optimization of left ventricular pacing site plus multipoint pacing improve remodeling and clinical response in patients with heart failure treated with CRT?
Absolute Event Rate: 90% vs 56%
p-value: p=0.004
Combining multipoint pacing with optimal positioning of the LV lead based on electrical delay and hemodynamics significantly enhances reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes compared to conventional CRT at 1 year.
Zanon et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=110). Optimized left ventricular pacing site combined with multipoint pacing (OPT + MPP) vs. Conventional CRT (STD) and CRT with optimized LV pacing site (OPT) was evaluated on Reduction in end-systolic volume index ≥15% (p=0.004). Optimized left ventricular pacing combined with multipoint pacing increased end-systolic volume index response compared to standard CRT (90% vs 56%, P=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: