Key result
Multipoint left ventricular pacing improved the rate of echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy at 3 months compared to conventional pacing (76% vs 50%).
Why the study?
Does multipoint left ventricular pacing improve echocardiographic and clinical response compared with conventional CRT in patients receiving a CRT implant?
Population
44 consecutive patients receiving a CRT implant, NYHA Class III, mean EF 29 ± 6%, mean QRS duration 152 ± 17…
Comparison
Biventricular pacing with multipoint pacing in a… vs Biventricular pacing with conventional left…
Design
RCT, randomized, analyzed by a blinded observer
Follow-up
3 months
Authors
Loading...
MPP may be preferred over conventional CRT pacing; extends short-term response data with PV-loop optimization.
RCT (n=44)
Blinded observer
Randomized
Does multipoint left ventricular pacing improve echocardiographic and clinical response compared with conventional CRT in patients receiving a CRT implant?
Absolute Event Rate: 76% vs 50%
Multipoint left ventricular pacing optimized by pressure-volume loops significantly improves echocardiographic response and clinical outcomes at 3 months compared to conventional CRT.
Pappone et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=44). Multipoint pacing (MPP) vs. Conventional LV pacing (CONV group) was evaluated on Response to CRT (≥15% reduction in end-systolic volume relative to baseline). Multipoint left ventricular pacing improved the rate of echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy at 3 months compared to conventional pacing (76% vs 50%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: