Literature DB >> 25109276

Multipoint left ventricular pacing in a single coronary sinus branch improves mid-term echocardiographic and clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Carlo Pappone1, Žarko Ćalović, Gabriele Vicedomini, Amarild Cuko, Luke C McSpadden, Kyungmoo Ryu, Enrico Romano, Mario Baldi, Massimo Saviano, Alessia Pappone, Cristiano Ciaccio, Luigi Giannelli, Bogdan Ionescu, Andrea Petretta, Raffaele Vitale, Angelica Fundaliotis, Luigi Tavazzi, Vincenzo Santinelli.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing in a single coronary sinus branch improves acute LV function. We hypothesized that multipoint pacing (MPP) can improve midterm echocardiographic and clinical response compared with conventional CRT. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Consecutive patients receiving a CRT implant (Unify Quadra MP™ or Quadra Assura MP™ CRT-D and Quartet™ LV lead, St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA) were randomized to receive biventricular (BiV) pacing with either conventional LV pacing (CONV group) or MPP (MPP group). For each patient, an optimal pacing configuration for the assigned pacing mode was programmed based on intraoperative pressure-volume (PV) loop measurements. A clinical evaluation and transthoracic echocardiogram were performed before implant (BASELINE) and at 3 months postimplant and analyzed by a blinded observer. A reduction in end-systolic volume (ESV) of ≥15% relative to BASELINE was prospectively defined as response to CRT. Forty-four patients (NYHA Class III, EF 29 ± 6%, QRS duration 152 ± 17 milliseconds) were enrolled and randomized. One patient in the MPP group was lost to follow-up and excluded from further analysis. After 3 months, 11 of 22 (50%) CONV patients and 16 of 21 (76%) MPP patients were classified as responders. ESV reduction, EF increase, and NYHA class reduction relative to BASELINE were significantly greater in the MPP group than in the CONV group (ESV: -21.0 ± 13.9 vs. -12.6 ± 11.1%, P = 0.03; EF: +9.8 ± 5.1 vs. +2.0 ± 7.8 percentage points, P < 0.001; ΔNYHA: -1.05 ± 0.22 vs. -0.72 ± 0.46 functional classes, P = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: PV loop optimized BiV pacing with MPP resulted in an improved rate of response to CRT.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRT response; LV modeling; cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure; multipoint pacing; pressure-volume loops

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25109276     DOI: 10.1111/jce.12513

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  16 in total

Review 1.  [Current impact of cardiac implantable electronic devices].

Authors:  J Kuschyk; B Rudic; M Borggrefe; I Akin
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 2.  Optimizing CRT - Do We Need More Leads and Delivery Methods.

Authors:  Pieter Martens; Frederik Hendrik Verbrugge; Wilfried Mullens
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-04-30

Review 3.  Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy-Emerging Therapeutic Approaches.

Authors:  Neal A Chatterjee; E Kevin Heist
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-03-06

4.  Device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction-cardiac resynchronization therapy and more.

Authors:  D Duncker; C Veltmann
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.443

5.  Heart failure study of multipoint pacing effects on ventriculoarterial coupling: Rationale and design of the HUMVEE trial.

Authors:  Christina Chrysohoou; Polychronis Dilaveris; Christos-Konstantinos Antoniou; Ioannis Skiadas; Konstantinos Konstantinou; Konstantinos Gatzoulis; Ioannis Kallikazaros; Dimitrios Tousoulis
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2017-10-15       Impact factor: 1.468

6.  Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Simultaneous and Sequential Multi-Point Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With an Expected Higher Rate of Sub-response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results of Multicenter SYNSEQ Study.

Authors:  Maciej Sterliński; Joanna Zakrzewska-Koperska; Aleksander Maciąg; Adam Sokal; Joaquin Osca-Asensi; Lingwei Wang; Vasiliki Spyropoulou; Baerbel Maus; Francesca Lemme; Osita Okafor; Berthold Stegemann; Richard Cornelussen; Francisco Leyva
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-05-12

7.  Rationale and design of a randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy: The MPP Trial.

Authors:  Gery Tomassoni; James Baker; Raffaele Corbisiero; Charles Love; David Martin; Robert Sheppard; Seth J Worley; Kwangdeok Lee; Imran Niazi
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 1.468

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

Authors:  Feng Hu; Lihui Zheng; Ligang Ding; Zhongpeng Du; Erpeng Liang; Lingmin Wu; Gang Chen; Xiaohan Fan; Yan Yao; Yu Jiang
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.214

9.  Multipoint Pacing versus conventional ICD in Patients with a Narrow QRS complex (MPP Narrow QRS trial): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Maurizio Gasparini; Paola Galimberti; Renato Bragato; Stefano Ghio; Claudia Raineri; Maurizio Landolina; Enrico Chieffo; Maurizio Lunati; Ederina Mulargia; Alessandro Proclemer; Domenico Facchin; Roberto Rordorf; Alessandro Vicentini; Lina Marcantoni; Francesco Zanon; Catherine Klersy
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-12-03       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Multi-site multi-polar left ventricular pacing through persistent left superior vena cava in tricuspid valve disease.

Authors:  Ernest W Lau
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2017-05-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.