ReviewAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2021
Multipoint left ventricular pacing as an addition to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a bridge to the holy grail?
Review in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multipoint Left Ventricular Pacing as Alternative Approach in Cases of Biventricular Pacing Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current trends in virtual electrophysiology use for risk stratification and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) constitutes a cornerstone to the treatment of advanced dyssynchronous heart failure (DyssHF); moreover it represents one of the few instances that a revolutionary approach was pursued, yielding previously unfathomable benefits to patients out of realistic therapeutic options. However, as is rather extensively established, nonresponse, or even negative response, to CRT continue to plague its course, precluding favourable effects in up to 40% of recipients, for a multitude of reasons. Given the scope of the issue of nonresponse, attempts to negate it by means of altering CRT delivery mode, and, more specifically, by introducing multipoint left ventricular pacing (MPP) have been focused on. Possible reasons for divergent trial results will be presented, as well as potential criteria for predicting whether MPP activation may reap additional benefits as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BVP). Finally, an alternative framework for approaching CRT in general will be put forward, including advancements which in the (near) future may once more revolutionise heart failure treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34548940PMC8449203What 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.