ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2026
Efficacy of multipoint versus conventional biventricular pacing in CRT: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiPoint Pacing (MPP) may enhance the clinical and echocardiographic response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT), but randomized evidence remains inconsistent. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of MPP versus conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
methodsWe conducted a PROSPERO-registered (CRD420251033856) systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating MPP versus BiV pacing. Outcomes included LVESV reduction, LVEF improvement, clinical response rate, super-response rate, and conversion to non-responder. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and certainty was assessed with GRADE.
resultsSix RCTs (n = 1,766) were included. MPP significantly improved LVEF (MD 5.16%, 95% CI 3.17-7.15; P < 0.0001), clinical response rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.55; P < 0.0001), and super-response rate (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.15-2.06; P = 0.004). The pooled LVESV analysis showed a nominally significant benefit with MPP, but this was accompanied by substantial heterogeneity and a prediction interval crossing zero, limiting confidence in a universal effect; the benefit appeared more consistent in CRT-naïve patients. No significant improvement was observed in non-responder conversion (RR 0.99). Overall certainty ranged from very low to moderate.
conclusionMultipoint pacing is associated with signals of improved left ventricular reverse remodeling and higher clinical response rates compared with conventional biventricular pacing. However, the high heterogeneity and a 95% prediction interval crossing zero for LVESV reduction indicate that this effect is not consistent across all populations. MPP provides clinically meaningful benefits primarily in selected patient subgroups-particularly in CRT-naïve and responder populations-rather than serving as a universal rescue strategy for established non-responders.
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.