ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2018
Left ventricular scar and the acute hemodynamic effects of multivein and multipolar pacing in cardiac resynchronization.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT01883141 (Left Ventricular MultiSpot Pacing for CRT), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Left Ventricular MultiSpot Pacing for CRT (iSPOT)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European heart journal open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to determine whether presence, amount and distribution of scar impacts the degree of acute hemodynamic response (AHR) with multisite pacing.Multi-vein pacing (MVP) or multipolar pacing (MPP) with a multi-electrode left ventricular (LV) lead may offer benefits over conventional biventricular pacing in patients with myocardial scar.
methodsIn this multi-center study left bundle branch block patients underwent an hemodynamic pacing study measuring LV dP/dt
results24 patients (QRS 171 ± 20 ms) completed the study (83% male). An ischemic etiology was present in 58% and the mean scar volume was 6.0 ± 7.0%. Overall discounting scar, MPP and MVP showed no significant AHR increase compared to an optimized "best BiV" (BestBiV) site. In a minority of patients (6/24) receiver-operator characteristic analysis of scar volume (cut off 8.48%) predicted a small AHR improvement with MPP (sensitivity 83%, specificity 94%) but not MVP. Patients with scar volume > 8.48% had a MPP-BestBiV of 3 ± 6.3% vs. -6.4 ± 7.7% for those below the cutoff. There was a significant correlation between the difference in AHR and scar volume for MPP-BestBiV (R = 0.49, p = 0.02) but not MVP-BestBiV(R = 0.111, p = 0.62). The multielectrode lead positioned in scar predicted MPP AHR improvement (p = 0.04).
conclusionsMultisite pacing with MPP and MVP shows no AHR benefit in all-comers compared to optimized BestBiV pacing. There was a minority of patients with significant scar volume in relation to the LV site that exhibited a small AHR improvement with MPP.(Study identifier NCT01883141).
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.