Gery Tomassoni1, James Baker2, Raffaele Corbisiero3, Charles Love4, David Martin5, Robert Sheppard6, Seth J Worley7, Kwangdeok Lee8, Imran Niazi9. 1. Baptist Health Lexington, Lexington, KY, USA. 2. Saint Thomas Research Institute, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Deborah Heart and Lung, Browns Mills, NJ, USA. 4. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Lahey Hospital and Medical Center - Cardiology, Burlington, MA, USA. 6. The Heart Institute, St. Petersburg, FL, USA. 7. Lancaster Heart Foundation, Lancaster, PA, USA. 8. Abbott, Plano, TX, USA. 9. Aurora Cardiovascular Services, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the majority of Class III congestive heart failure (HF) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) show a clinical benefit, up to 40% of patients do not respond to CRT. This paper reports the design of the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CRT using MPP compared to standard biventricular (Bi-V) pacing. METHODS: A maximum of 506 patients with a standard CRT-D indication will be enrolled at up to 50 US centers. All patients will be implanted with a CRT-D system (Quartet LV lead Model 1458Q with a Quadra CRT-D, Abbott) that can deliver both MPP and Bi-V pacing. Standard Bi-V pacing will be activated at implant. At 3 months postimplant, patients in whom the echocardiographic parameters during MPP are equal or better than during Bi-V pacing are randomized (1:1) to either an MPP or Bi-V arm. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint is freedom from system-related complications at 9 months. Each patient's response to CRT will be evaluated using a heart-failure clinical composite score, consisting of a change in NYHA functional class, patient global assessment score, HF events, and cardiovascular death. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders in the MPP arm compared with the Bi-V arm between 3 and 9 months. CONCLUSION: This trial seeks to evaluate whether MPP via a single quadripolar LV lead improves hemodynamic and clinical responses to CRT, both in clinical responders and nonresponders.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although the majority of Class III congestive heart failure (HF) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) show a clinical benefit, up to 40% of patients do not respond to CRT. This paper reports the design of the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CRT using MPP compared to standard biventricular (Bi-V) pacing. METHODS: A maximum of 506 patients with a standard CRT-D indication will be enrolled at up to 50 US centers. All patients will be implanted with a CRT-D system (Quartet LV lead Model 1458Q with a Quadra CRT-D, Abbott) that can deliver both MPP and Bi-V pacing. Standard Bi-V pacing will be activated at implant. At 3 months postimplant, patients in whom the echocardiographic parameters during MPP are equal or better than during Bi-V pacing are randomized (1:1) to either an MPP or Bi-V arm. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint is freedom from system-related complications at 9 months. Each patient's response to CRT will be evaluated using a heart-failure clinical composite score, consisting of a change in NYHA functional class, patient global assessment score, HF events, and cardiovascular death. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders in the MPP arm compared with the Bi-V arm between 3 and 9 months. CONCLUSION: This trial seeks to evaluate whether MPP via a single quadripolar LV lead improves hemodynamic and clinical responses to CRT, both in clinical responders and nonresponders.
Authors: Francois B Tournoux; Chrisfouad Alabiad; Dali Fan; Annabel A Chen; Miguel Chaput; Edwin Kevin Heist; Theofanie Mela; Moussa Mansour; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Michael H Picard; Jagmeet P Singh Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-04-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: C Aldo Rinaldi; Wolfgang Kranig; Christophe Leclercq; Salem Kacet; Tim Betts; Pierre Bordachar; Klaus-Jürgen Gutleben; Anoop Shetty; Allen Keel; Kyungmoo Ryu; Taraneh G Farazi; Marcus Simon; Tasneem Z Naqvi Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christopher Aldo Rinaldi; Haran Burri; Bernard Thibault; Antonio Curnis; Archana Rao; Daniel Gras; Johannes Sperzel; Jagmeet P Singh; Mauro Biffi; Pierre Bordachar; Christophe Leclercq Journal: Europace Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James B Young; William T Abraham; Andrew L Smith; Angel R Leon; Randy Lieberman; Bruce Wilkoff; Robert C Canby; John S Schroeder; L Bing Liem; Shelley Hall; Kevin Wheelan Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annemieke H M Jansen; Frank A Bracke; Jan M van Dantzig; Albert Meijer; Pepijn H van der Voort; Wilbert Aarnoudse; Berry M van Gelder; Kathinka H Peels Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-01-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Antonios P Antoniadis; Ben Sieniewicz; Justin Gould; Bradley Porter; Jessica Webb; Simon Claridge; Jonathan M Behar; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi Journal: Curr Heart Fail Rep Date: 2017-10