Key result
Multipoint pacing resulted in significant acute haemodynamic improvement compared to biventricular pacing without a significant change in QRS duration and QRS area.
Why the study?
Does multipoint pacing improve acute haemodynamic response and electrical resynchronization compared to biventricular pacing in CRT candidates?
Population
29 cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates
Comparison
Multipoint pacing using quadripolar left… vs Biventricular (BiV) pacing
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Acute
Authors
Loading...
MPP hemodynamic gains may reflect QRS narrowing or axis shift; leaves open whether MPP improves long-term CRT outcomes.
Does multipoint pacing improve acute haemodynamic response and electrical resynchronization compared to biventricular pacing in CRT candidates?
The acute haemodynamic benefit of multipoint pacing over biventricular pacing is achieved by either electrical resynchronization or a rotation of the maximal QRS vector indicating a more LV-dominated activation sequence.
Engels et al. (2018) studied CRT candidates (n=29). Multipoint pacing (MPP) vs. Biventricular (BiV) pacing was evaluated on Acute haemodynamic benefit and reduction in QRS duration and VCG-derived QRS area. Multipoint pacing resulted in significant acute haemodynamic improvement compared to biventricular pacing without a significant change in QRS duration and QRS area.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: