Trial reportPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Exercise Capacity and the Force Frequency Relationship in Multi-Point Versus Single-Point Pacing: A Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2026. 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.
- Exercise Capacity and the Force Frequency Relationship in Multi-Point Versus Single-Point Pacing: A Randomized Trial.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Trial
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuadripolar left ventricular (LV) epicardial leads capable of multipoint pacing (MPP) may have an advantage over conventional bipolar leads for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by stimulating the lateral LV wall from two distinct locations simultaneously.
aimWe aimed to determine the acute and longer-term effects of MPP compared with single-point pacing (SPP) on LV contractility and exercise capacity in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving CRT.
methodsParticipants were enrolled into a randomized crossover study with echocardiographic assessment of the comparative effects of acute MPP and SPP on LV contractility and cardiopulmonary exercise testing at 6-weeks and 6-months following device implantation. Participants were then randomized in a parallel-group study to either MPP or SPP for further 6-months.
resultsTwenty-three participants (mean age 73 years [95% confidence interval: 69, 78], 91% male, 91% New York Heart Association [NYHA] class II, LV ejection fraction 31.3% [27.4, 35.1]) were included. At resting heart rates, LV contractility was significantly higher with MPP compared to SPP (2.29 mmHg/mL/m
conclusionAlthough CRT with MPP resulted in improved LV contractility at resting heart rates acutely post implantation, it did not translate into consistent mechanistic or patient-orientated benefits in the short or longer-term.
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.