Key result
Multipoint pacing activation significantly improved the clinical composite score (56% vs. 38%; P=0.009) and independently predicted an absolute LVEF increase of ≥5% (OR 2.5; P=0.001) at 6 months.
Why the study?
Does multipoint pacing (MPP) programmed to 'ON' improve heart failure clinical composite response and ejection fraction in patients receiving CRT devices compared to conventional biventricular pacing?
Population
507 patients who successfully received multipoint pacing capable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices…
Comparison
Multipoint pacing programmed to 'ON' at discharge vs Multipoint pacing programmed to 'OFF' at discharge
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
Should not change MPP practice in HF; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=507)
Yes
Does multipoint pacing (MPP) programmed to 'ON' improve heart failure clinical composite response and ejection fraction in patients receiving CRT devices compared to conventional biventricular pacing?
Absolute Event Rate: 56% vs 38%
p-value: p=0.009
Multipoint pacing in CRT devices improves clinical status and results in an additional increase in ejection fraction compared to conventional biventricular pacing at 6 months.
Forleo et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=507). Multipoint pacing (MPP) programmed to 'ON' vs. Multipoint pacing programmed to 'OFF' (conventional biventricular pacing) was evaluated on Improvement in clinical composite score at 6 months (p=0.009). Multipoint pacing activation significantly improved the clinical composite score (56% vs. 38%; P=0.009) and independently predicted an absolute LVEF increase of ≥5% (OR 2.5; P=0.001) at 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: