Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37776313›Full record

Trial reportEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2023

Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responder to responder conversion rate in the MORE-CRT MPP trial.

Christophe Leclercq, Haran Burri, Peter Paul Delnoy, Christopher A Rinaldi, Johannes Sperzel, Leonardo Calò, Joaquin Fernandez Concha, Antonio Fusco, Faisal Al Samadi, Kwangdeok Lee and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis considering randomized controlled trials and observational studies.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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Redefining response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a post hoc analysis of the MORE-CRT MPP trial.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 · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Multipoint pacing is associated with reduction of heart failure hospitalizations or death in patients who do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy: results of the MORE-CRT MPP randomized trial.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 · 2025
    Trial
  5. Multipoint pacing is associated with improved prognosis and cardiac resynchronization therapy response: MORE-CRT MPP randomized study secondary analyses.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 · 2024
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. 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 · 2026
    Review
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Controversy: in heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, conduction system pacing can be a valid alternative to biventricular pacing-pro and contra.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 · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. [New pacing strategies for heart failure].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Christophe LeclercqService de Cardiologie et Maladies Vasculaires, Université de Rennes I, CICIT 804, CHU Pontchaillou Rennes, 2, rue Henri le Guilloux 35033 Rennes Cédex 09, Rennes 35033, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4399-5568
Haran BurriDepartement of Cardiology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4393-5338
Peter Paul DelnoyIsala Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Christopher A RinaldiKing's College, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3930-1957
Johannes SperzelThe Kerckhoff Heart and Thorax Center, Bad Nauheim, Kerckhoff Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
Leonardo CalòDivision of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6062-5286
Joaquin Fernandez ConchaCardiólogo en Servicio Extremeño De Salud, Hospital Universitario de Badajoz, Badajoz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1004-5988
Antonio FuscoOspedale Dott, Pederzoli, Italy.
Faisal Al SamadiKing Fahad Medical City, Saudi Arabia.
Kwangdeok LeeAbbott, Plano, USA.
Bernard ThibaultElectrophysiology Service Department of Cardiology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

Abbott NCT02006069
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo assess the impact of MultiPoint™ Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) non-responders after 6 months of standard biventricular pacing (BiVP). METHODS AND

resultsThe trial enrolled 5850 patients who planned to receive a CRT device. The echocardiography core laboratory assessed CRT response before implant and after 6 months of BiVP; non-response to BiVP was defined as <15% relative reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Echocardiographic non-responders were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive MPP (541 patients) or continued BiVP (570 patients) for an additional 6 months and evaluated the conversion rate to the echocardiographic response. The characteristics of both groups at randomization were comparable. The percentage of non-responder patients who became responders to CRT therapy was 29.4% in the MPP arm and 30.4% in the BIVP arm (P = 0.743). In patients with ≥30 mm spacing between the two left ventricular pacing sites (MPP-AS), identified during the first phase as a potential beneficial subgroup, no significant difference in the conversion rate was observed.

conclusionOur trial shows that ∼30% of patients, who do not respond to CRT in the first 6 months, experience significant reverse remodelling in the following 6 months. This finding suggests that CRT benefit may be delayed or slowly incremental in a relevant proportion of patients and that the percentage of CRT responders may be higher than what has been described in short-/middle-term studies. MultiPoint™ Pacing does not improve CRT response in non-responders to BiVP, even with MPP-AS.

Indexed as

Cardiac Resynchronization TherapyHeart FailureCardiac Resynchronization Therapy DevicesHumansProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVentricular Function, LeftBiventricular pacingCardiac resynchronizationHeart failureMPPMultiPoint PacingQuadripolar left ventricular pacingRandomized controlled study

Identifiers

PMID37776313
PMCPMC10561537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.