SynthesisJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2021
Multipoint pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multipoint Pacing Versus Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Pooled it
- Conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Exercise Capacity and the Force Frequency Relationship in Multi-Point Versus Single-Point Pacing: A Randomized Trial.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Trial
- 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
- A Comprehensive Review of a Mechanism-Based Ventricular Electrical Storm Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Acute effect of multipoint pacing and fused AV delay in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Multipoint Left Ventricular Pacing as Alternative Approach in Cases of Biventricular Pacing Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Recent Advances in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Current Treatment and Future Direction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Optimizing outcomes from cardiac resynchronization therapy: what do recent data and insights say?Expert review of cardiovascular therapy · 2024Review
- [Anton Bruckner: the Linz cathedral organist, university teacher, symphonic musician : Could modern intensive care medicine have helped him and his illnesses?]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Article
- Electrical Storm Induced by Cardiac Resynchronization: Efficacy of the Multipoint Pacing Stimulation.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: State of the art, current controversies, and future perspectives.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
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMultipoint 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionOverall 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.
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.