Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Multipoint pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Mehta, Vishal S; Elliott, Mark K; Sidhu, Baldeep S; Gould, Justin; Porter, Bradley; Niederer, Steven; Rinaldi, Christopher A.
Afiliação
  • Mehta VS; Department of Cardiology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Elliott MK; Department of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, UK.
  • Sidhu BS; Department of Cardiology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Gould J; Department of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, UK.
  • Porter B; Department of Cardiology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Niederer S; Department of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, UK.
  • Rinaldi CA; Department of Cardiology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol ; 32(9): 2577-2589, 2021 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34379350
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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Terapia de Ressincronização Cardíaca / Insuficiência Cardíaca Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Terapia de Ressincronização Cardíaca / Insuficiência Cardíaca Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article