Key result
Biventricular pacing did not significantly improve 6-minute walk distance compared to univentricular pacing (SMD 0.049), though triventricular pacing significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction compared to biventricular pacing.
Why the study?
Does biventricular or triventricular pacing improve clinical and functional outcomes compared to univentricular or biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure?
Meta-Analysis
Does biventricular or triventricular pacing improve clinical and functional outcomes compared to univentricular or biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure?
Standardized Mean Difference: 0.049 (95% CI -0.119–0.217)
p-value: p=0.566
Triventricular CRT significantly improves left ventricular ejection fraction compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients, though functional outcomes like 6-minute walk distance remain comparable across modalities.
Questions the added value of biventricular over univentricular pacing; extends evidence supporting triventricular configurations for future CRT trials.
Introduction: This meta-analysis evaluated 14 studies which compared clinical and functional outcomes after different cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) modalities. Material and methods: Relevant studies were selected from the Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases until June 27 th , 2016. We analyzed and compared the clinical outcomes (peak O 2 consumption and LVEF) and functional outcomes (6-min walk distance and quality of life (SF-36)) of HF patients who received different CRT modalities with outcomes in patients who received conventional univentricular therapy. Results: There was no significant difference in post-treatment 6-min walking distance between the biventricular (BiV) and left/right univentricular (LUV/RUV) groups (standardized difference in means = 0.049, 95% CI: -0.119 to 0.217, p = 0.566), or between the BiV and triventricular (TriV) groups (standardized difference in means = 0.035, 95% CI: -0.270 to 0.340, p = 0.822). Peak O 2 consumption was comparable between BiV and LUV/RUV groups (standardized difference in means = 0.306, 95% CI: -0.002 to 0.614, p = 0.052). Patients in the TriV group had a significant improvement in LVEF compared to the BiV group (standardized difference in means = 0.647, 95% CI: 0.313 to 0.982, p < 0.001). Conclusions: TriV CRT is an attractive alternative to univentricular or BiV pacing for heart failure patients. It is necessary to conduct further large randomized trials to validate our present data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure. Biventricular (BiV) pacing vs. Left/right univentricular (LUV/RUV) pacing was evaluated on 6-minute walk distance (SMD 0.049, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.217, p=0.566). Biventricular pacing did not significantly improve 6-minute walk distance compared to univentricular pacing (SMD 0.049), though triventricular pacing significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction compared to biventricular pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: