Why the study?
Multipoint pacing improves resynchronization but reduces battery longevity, whereas electrocardiogram-based FOI optimization improves reverse remodeling; whether MPP achieves better resynchronization than FOI-optimized single-point pacing remained unknown.
Does single-point pacing optimized by fusion-optimized intervals improve QRS shortening compared to multipoint pacing in patients receiving CRT devices?
Does single-point pacing optimized by fusion-optimized intervals improve QRS shortening compared to multipoint pacing in patients receiving CRT devices?
Single-point pacing optimized by fusion-optimized intervals achieves better electrical resynchronization and longer estimated battery longevity than multipoint pacing.
SPP-FOI may improve resynchronization and battery life versus MPP in CRT; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Background: Multipoint pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) activates the left ventricle from two locations, thereby shortening the QRS duration and enabling better resynchronization; however, compared with conventional CRT, MPP reduces battery longevity. On the other hand, electrocardiogram-based optimization using the fusion-optimized intervals (FOI) method achieves more significant reverse remodeling than nominal CRT programming. Our study aimed to determine whether MPP could attain better resynchronization than single-point pacing (SPP) optimized by FOI. Methods: This prospective study included 32 consecutive patients who successfully received CRT devices with MPP capabilities. After implantation, the QRS duration was measured during intrinsic rhythm and with three pacing configurations: MPP, SPP-FOI, and MPP-FOI. In 14 patients, biventricular activation times (by electrocardiographic imaging, ECGI) were obtained during intrinsic rhythm and for each pacing configuration to validate the findings. Device battery longevity was estimated at the 45-day follow-up. Results: The SPP-FOI method achieved greater QRS shortening than MPP (-56±16 vs. -42±17 ms, P<0.001). Adding MPP to the best FOI programming did not result in further shortening (MPP-FOI: - 58±14 ms, P=0.69). Furthermore, the biventricular activation time according to ECGI was also shorter with SPP-FOI than with MPP. The estimated battery longevity was longer with SPP than with MPP (8.1±2.3 vs. 6.3±2.0 years, P=0.03). Conclusions: SPP optimized by FOI resulted in better resynchronization and longer battery duration than MPP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Antonio et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: