Repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations with quadripolar leads improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A single-center randomized clinical trial

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing via quadripolar lead versus traditional biventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on hemodynamic, clinical, and prognostic parameters

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the cornerstones of heart failure (HF) therapy, as it has reduced mortality and morbidity and has shown improvement in functional capacity. Multipoint pacing (MPP) is a way of configuring CRT with the aim to improve the percentage of patients who respond to CRT.

Objective

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MPP compared to traditional biventricular pacing (BiV).

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines of studies in which MPP vs BiV strategy were compared.

Results

MPP use is associated with a higher rate of patients experiencing functional improvement (odds ratio: 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56–4.06; P = .0002) and with higher delta LV dP/dt_max (mean difference, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.24–3.39; P = .0240) with respect to BiV. MPP and BiV have no significantly different effect on left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, -11.12 to 11.89; P = .9475); moreover, there is no significant difference between the 2 treatments regarding hospitalization for HF (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.54; P = .3816) and all-cause death (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.62; P = .5460). MPP is associated with a significantly lower projected battery longevity (mean difference -8.66 months; 95% CI, -13.67 to -3.66; P = .00007) with respect to BiV.

Conclusion

MPP significantly improves functional class and acute hemodynamic parameters with respect to BiV. Prognostic indices and LVESV are not significantly influenced by MPP. MPP is associated with a significant reduction in projected battery longevity.

Multipoint left ventricular pacing as an addition to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a bridge to the holy grail?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) constitutes a cornerstone to the treatment of advanced dyssynchronous heart failure (DyssHF); moreover it represents one of the few instances that a revolutionary approach was pursued, yielding previously unfathomable benefits to patients out of realistic therapeutic options. However, as is rather extensively established, nonresponse, or even negative response, to CRT continue to plague its course, precluding favourable effects in up to 40% of recipients, for a multitude of reasons. Given the scope of the issue of nonresponse, attempts to negate it by means of altering CRT delivery mode, and, more specifically, by introducing multipoint left ventricular pacing (MPP) have been focused on. Possible reasons for divergent trial results will be presented, as well as potential criteria for predicting whether MPP activation may reap additional benefits as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BVP). Finally, an alternative framework for approaching CRT in general will be put forward, including advancements which in the (near) future may once more revolutionise heart failure treatment.

Effectiveness of multipoint cardiac resynchronizing therapy in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an important validated technique for patients with dyssynchrony and heart failure. However, the response rate to conventional resynchronization is approximately 50%; therefore, new techniques and schedules have emerged. This study aimed to evaluate the different clinical and echocardiographic variables of conventional versus multipoint cardiac resynchronization therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

A systematic review was conducted of randomized clinical trials in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases on cardiac resynchronization intervention with multipoint stimulation clinical and echocardiographic outcomes evaluated before and 3 months after the intervention.

RESULTS

Three studies (N = 139) were ultimately selected, and 100% of patients had a New York Heart Association functional class of II-IV, QRS > 120 ms, and a left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%. Significantly greater improvement was observed in the functional class of patients who underwent multipoint versus conventional therapy. The final systolic volume and ejection fraction improved in the multipoint group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature lacks sufficient randomized controlled studies to enable conclusions regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy responses using different strategies. Moreover, the improvement in functional class in the multipoint pacing group involved few patients and had slight statistical relevance.

Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected patients with systolic heart failure. Unlike conventional biventricular pacing (BIP), the left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) can increase the number of left ventricular pacing sites via a quadripolar lead positioned in the coronary sinus. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the clinical outcome of MPP in comparison with BIP. We systematically searched the databases of EMBASE, Ovid medline, and Cochrane Library through May 2018 for studies comparing the clinical outcome of MPP with BIP in the patients who accepted CRT. Hospitalization for reason of heart failure, left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), CRT response, all-cause morbidity, and cardiovascular death rate was collected for meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 29,606 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with BIP group, MPP decreased heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.50; P < 0.00001), improved LVEF (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, 3.11 to 6.83; P < 0.00001), increased CRT response (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.68 to 7.87; P = 0.001), and decreased all-cause morbidity (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.66; P = 0.0002) and cardiovascular death rate (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < 0.00001). The published literature demonstrates that MPP was more effective than BIP in the heart failure patients who accepted cardiac resynchronization therapy.