ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2018
Multisite cardiac resynchronization therapy for traditional and non-traditional indications.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMultisite cardiac resynchronization therapy (MSCRT) with dual-vein left ventricular (LV) pacing has theoretical advantages over conventional CRT in faster and more physiological LV activation. We aimed to define indications, feasibility, safety, acute, and long-term results of MSCRT.
methodsAll patients implanted with MSCRT during 2008-2014 in a single center were reviewed and analyzed.
resultsThirty-nine patients (90% CRT-defibrillators, 64 ± 9 years, 85% male, 74% ischemic etiology) were included. Four groups of indications were recognized: (1) significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in patients planned for device implantation without right ventricular lead (n = 3). Follow-up (f/u) of 4 ± 3 years showed major symptomatic improvement in all, with stable LV size and function and deferral of valve surgery; (2) severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 4). Except for 1 early death for acute renal failure, all others showed no VT episodes and HF improvement (f/u 4.5 ± 0.5 years); (3) severe HFrEF and wide QRS (≥ 150 ms) or failure of biventricular pacing to narrow QRS during implantation (n = 5). One patient had periprocedural mortality. The others had major clinical improvement; (4) severe HF and narrow QRS/RBBB (n = 27). 23/24 patients with available f/u of 3 ± 1.7 years improved clinically and 57% had EF improvement. In 3 patients, LV1 was disabled and one had LV2 dislodgement.
conclusionsMSCRT is feasible, safe, and valuable in selected patients with a need to avoid RV lead during device implantation, refractory VT with no other solution, severe HFrEF with wide QRS or CRT non-responsiveness, and severe HF without LBBB. Randomized controlled studies are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29442199What 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.