Trial reportMedicine2017
Repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations with quadripolar leads improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A single-center randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart failure reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy of multipoint versus conventional biventricular pacing in CRT: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Multipoint left ventricular pacing as an addition to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a bridge to the holy grail?American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2021Review
- Updates on Device-Based Therapies for Patients with Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate whether repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations (LVPCs) with quadripolar leads (QUAD) can improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
methodsFifty-two eligible patients were enrolled and 1:1 randomized to either the quadripolar LV leads (QUAD) group or the conventional bipolar leads (CONV) group. In the QUAD group, optimization of LVPC was performed for all patients before discharge and for nonresponders at 3 months follow-up. Clinical evaluations and transthoracic echocardiograms were performed before, 3, and 6 months after CRT implantation.
resultsAt 3 months follow-up, 16 of 25 (64%) patients in the CONV group (1 patient was lost to follow-up) and 18 of 26 (69%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders. After optimizing the LVPCs in 3-month nonresponders in the QUAD group, 21 of 26 (80.8%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders at 6 months as compared with 17 of 25 (68%) patients in the CONV group. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increase, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction at 6 months were significantly greater in the QUAD group than in the CONV group (LVESV: -26.9 ± 13.8 vs -17.2 ± 13.3%; P = .013; LVEF: +12.7 ± 8.0 vs +7.8 ± 6.3 percentage points; P = .017; NYHA: -1.27 ± 0.67 vs -0.72 ± 0.54 functional classes; P = .002).
conclusionsCompared with conventional bipolar leads, CRT using quadripolar leads with repetitive optimized LVPCs resulted in an additional increase in LVEF and reduction in LVESV and NYHA functional class at 6-month follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.