ArticleHeart rhythm O22020
Evaluating multisite pacing strategies in cardiac resynchronization therapy in the preclinical setting.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- CineECG Repolarization Gradients Predict Acute Hemodynamic Response in CRT Patients.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Optimizing outcomes from cardiac resynchronization therapy: what do recent data and insights say?Expert review of cardiovascular therapy · 2024Review
- A porcine large animal model of radiofrequency ablation-induced left bundle branch block.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European heart journal open · 2022Article
- Determinants of the time-to-peak left ventricular dP/dt (Td) and QRS duration with different fusion strategies in cardiac resynchronization therapy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Physiology and Practicality of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2021Review
- Determinants of LV dP/dtOpen heart · 2021Observational
- Second heart sound splitting as an indicator of interventricular mechanical dyssynchrony using a novel splitting detection algorithm.Physiological reports · 2021Article
- To the Editor - Multisite pacing strategies: Solutions looking for a problem?Heart rhythm O2 · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultisite pacing strategies that improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been proposed. Current available options are pacing 2 electrodes in a multipolar lead in a single vein (multipoint pacing [MPP]) and pacing using 2 leads in separate veins (multizone pacing [MZP]).
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare in a systematic manner the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) and electrophysiological effects of MPP and MZP and compare them with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP).
methodsHemodynamic and electrophysiological effects were evaluated in a porcine model of acute left bundle branch block (LBBB) (n = 8). AHR was assessed as LVdP/dtmax. Activation times were measured using >100 electrodes around the epicardium, measuring total activation time (TAT) and left ventricular activation time (LVAT).
resultsCompared to LBBB, BiVP, MZP, and MPP reduced TAT by 26% ± 10%, 32% ± 13%, and 32% ± 14%, respectively (
conclusionIn this animal model of acute LBBB, MPP and MZP create similar degrees of electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic effect, which are larger if interelectrode distance is large. MPP and MZP increase the benefit of CRT only if the left ventricular lead used for BiVP provides poor response.
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.