Cargando…

Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS: Multi-lead pacing is a potential therapy to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by providing rapid activation of the myocardium from multiple sites. Here, we perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of multi-lead pacing. METHODS AND...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elliott, Mark K, Mehta, Vishal, Wijesuriya, Nadeev, Sidhu, Baldeep S, Gould, Justin, Niederer, Steven, Rinaldi, Christopher A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9242027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35919119
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeac013
_version_ 1784737963985338368
author Elliott, Mark K
Mehta, Vishal
Wijesuriya, Nadeev
Sidhu, Baldeep S
Gould, Justin
Niederer, Steven
Rinaldi, Christopher A
author_facet Elliott, Mark K
Mehta, Vishal
Wijesuriya, Nadeev
Sidhu, Baldeep S
Gould, Justin
Niederer, Steven
Rinaldi, Christopher A
author_sort Elliott, Mark K
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Multi-lead pacing is a potential therapy to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by providing rapid activation of the myocardium from multiple sites. Here, we perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of multi-lead pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: A literature search was performed which identified 251 unique records. After screening, 6 studies were found to meet inclusion criteria, with 415 patients included in the meta-analysis. Four studies performed multi-lead pacing with two left ventricular (LV) leads and one right ventricular (RV) lead. One study used two RV leads and one LV lead, and one study used both configurations. There was no difference between multi-lead pacing and conventional CRT in LV end-systolic volume [mean difference (MD) −0.54 mL, P = 0.93] or LV ejection fraction (MD 1.42%, P = 0.40). There was a borderline significant improvement in Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score for multi-lead pacing vs. conventional CRT (MD −4.46, P = 0.05), but the difference was not significant when only patients receiving LV-only multi-lead pacing were included (MD −3.59, P = 0.25). There was also no difference between groups for 6-min walk test (MD 15.06 m, P = 0.38) or New York Heart Association class at follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 1.49, P = 0.24]. There was no difference in mortality between groups (OR 1.11, P = 0.77). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis does not support the use of multi-lead pacing for CRT delivery. However, significant variation between studies was noted, and therefore a benefit for multi-lead pacing in select patients cannot be excluded, and further investigation may be warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9242027
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92420272022-08-01 Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Elliott, Mark K Mehta, Vishal Wijesuriya, Nadeev Sidhu, Baldeep S Gould, Justin Niederer, Steven Rinaldi, Christopher A Eur Heart J Open Original Article AIMS: Multi-lead pacing is a potential therapy to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by providing rapid activation of the myocardium from multiple sites. Here, we perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of multi-lead pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: A literature search was performed which identified 251 unique records. After screening, 6 studies were found to meet inclusion criteria, with 415 patients included in the meta-analysis. Four studies performed multi-lead pacing with two left ventricular (LV) leads and one right ventricular (RV) lead. One study used two RV leads and one LV lead, and one study used both configurations. There was no difference between multi-lead pacing and conventional CRT in LV end-systolic volume [mean difference (MD) −0.54 mL, P = 0.93] or LV ejection fraction (MD 1.42%, P = 0.40). There was a borderline significant improvement in Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score for multi-lead pacing vs. conventional CRT (MD −4.46, P = 0.05), but the difference was not significant when only patients receiving LV-only multi-lead pacing were included (MD −3.59, P = 0.25). There was also no difference between groups for 6-min walk test (MD 15.06 m, P = 0.38) or New York Heart Association class at follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 1.49, P = 0.24]. There was no difference in mortality between groups (OR 1.11, P = 0.77). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis does not support the use of multi-lead pacing for CRT delivery. However, significant variation between studies was noted, and therefore a benefit for multi-lead pacing in select patients cannot be excluded, and further investigation may be warranted. Oxford University Press 2022-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9242027/ /pubmed/35919119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeac013 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Elliott, Mark K
Mehta, Vishal
Wijesuriya, Nadeev
Sidhu, Baldeep S
Gould, Justin
Niederer, Steven
Rinaldi, Christopher A
Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort multi-lead pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9242027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35919119
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeac013
work_keys_str_mv AT elliottmarkk multileadpacingforcardiacresynchronizationtherapyinheartfailureametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT mehtavishal multileadpacingforcardiacresynchronizationtherapyinheartfailureametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wijesuriyanadeev multileadpacingforcardiacresynchronizationtherapyinheartfailureametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT sidhubaldeeps multileadpacingforcardiacresynchronizationtherapyinheartfailureametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT gouldjustin multileadpacingforcardiacresynchronizationtherapyinheartfailureametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT niederersteven multileadpacingforcardiacresynchronizationtherapyinheartfailureametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT rinaldichristophera multileadpacingforcardiacresynchronizationtherapyinheartfailureametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials