Literature DB >> 34379350

Multipoint pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vishal S Mehta1,2, Mark K Elliott1,2, Baldeep S Sidhu1,2, Justin Gould1,2, Bradley Porter2, Steven Niederer2, Christopher A Rinaldi1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Multipoint pacing (MPP) has been proposed as an effective way to improve cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) response. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of CRT delivered via MPP compared to conventional CRT.
METHODS: A literature search was performed from inception to January 2021 for studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, comparing MPP to conventional CRT with a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Randomised and nonrandomised studies were assessed for relevant efficacy data including echocardiographic (left ventricular end systolic volume [LVESV] and ejection fraction) or functional changes (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class/Clinical Composite Score). Subgroup analyses were performed by study design and programming type.
RESULTS: A total of 7 studies with a total of 1390 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, MPP demonstrated greater echocardiographic improvement than conventional CRT in nonrandomised studies (odds ratio [OR]: 5.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.05-9.33], p < .001), however, was not significant in randomised studies (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: [0.91-3.79], p = .086). There was no significant difference in LVESV reduction >15% (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: [0.69-5.55], p = .20) or improvement by ≥1 NYHA class (OR: 2.49, 95% CI: [0.74-8.42], p = .141) when comparing MPP to conventional CRT. In a sub analysis, MPP programmed by widest anatomical separation (MPP-AS) signalled greater efficacy, however, only 120 patients were included in this analysis.
CONCLUSION: Overall MPP was more efficacious in nonrandomised studies, and not superior when assessed in randomised studies. There was considerable heterogeneity in study design making overall interpretation of results challenging. Widespread MPP programming in all CRT patients is currently not justified. Further large, randomised studies with patient-specific programming may clarify its effectiveness.
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MPP; cardiac resynchronisation therapy; efficacy; meta-analysis; multipoint pacing; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34379350     DOI: 10.1111/jce.15199

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


  2 in total

1.  Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Mark K Elliott; Vishal Mehta; Nadeev Wijesuriya; Baldeep S Sidhu; Justin Gould; Steven Niederer; Christopher A Rinaldi
Journal:  Eur Heart J Open       Date:  2022-02-26

2.  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.

Authors:  Cristiano Massacesi; Laura Ceriello; Fabrizio Maturo; Annamaria Porreca; Marianna Appignani; Enrico Di Girolamo
Journal:  Heart Rhythm O2       Date:  2021-12-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.