Key result
MultiPoint Pacing with automatic LV vector selection significantly increased the rate of CRT response (ESV reduction ≥15%) compared to conventional biventricular pacing (68.5% vs. 50.7%, P=0.04).
Why the study?
Response to multipoint left ventricular pacing (MPP) using automated pacing vector programming had not been demonstrated in the Middle East.
Does multipoint left ventricular pacing improve echocardiographic reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes compared to conventional biventricular pacing in heart failure patients undergoing CRT-D implantation?
RCT (n=142)
randomized
Yes
Does multipoint left ventricular pacing improve echocardiographic reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes compared to conventional biventricular pacing in heart failure patients undergoing CRT-D implantation?
Multipoint pacing with automatic LV vector selection significantly improved echocardiographic reverse remodeling and clinical symptoms compared to conventional biventricular pacing at 6 months.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports multipoint pacing in CRT-D; extends randomized evidence for optimized LV vector selection over conventional BiV pacing.
Introduction: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing (MultiPoint™ Pacing, MPP) has been shown to improve CRT response, although MPP response using automated pacing vector programming has not been demonstrated in the Middle East. Objective: Compare the impact of MPP to conventional biventricular pacing (BiV) using echocardiographic and clinical changes at 6 months post-implant. Methods: This prospective, randomized study was conducted at 13 Middle Eastern centers. After de novo CRT-D implant (Abbott Unify Quadra MP™ or Quadra Assura MP™) with quadripolar LV lead (Abbott Quartet™), patients were randomized to either BiV or MPP therapy. In BiV patients, the LV pacing vector was selected per standard practice; in MPP patients, the two LV pacing vectors were selected automatically using VectSelect. CRT response was defined at 6 months post-implant by a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) ≥15%. Results: One-hundred and forty-two patients (61 years old, 68% male, NYHA class II/III/IV 19%/75%/6%, 33% ischemic, 57% hypertension, 52% diabetes, 158 ms QRS, 25.8% ejection fraction [EF]) were randomized to either BiV (N=69) or MPP (N=73). After 6 months, MPP vs. BiV patients experienced greater ESV reduction (25.0% vs. 15.3%, P=0.08), greater EF elevation (11.9% vs. 8.6%, P=0.36), significantly greater ESV response rate (68.5% vs. 50.7%, P=0.04), and significantly greater NYHA class improvement rate (80.8% vs. 60.3%, P=0.01). Conclusions: With MPP and automatic LV vector selection, more CRT patients in the Middle East experienced reverse remodeling and clinical improvement relative to conventional BiV pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almusaad et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Heart Failure (n=142). MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) with automatic LV vector selection vs. Conventional biventricular pacing (BiV) was evaluated on CRT response (reduction in LV end-systolic volume ≥15%) (p=0.04). MultiPoint Pacing with automatic LV vector selection significantly increased the rate of CRT response (ESV reduction ≥15%) compared to conventional biventricular pacing (68.5% vs. 50.7%, P=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: