Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of multipoint cardiac resynchronizing therapy in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Bessa A, Mendes Pimentel PG, Da Silva Menezes Junior A, Gonçalves LC, Barbosa VA, Fernandes JF, Laranjeira TA, Cordeiro Silva AMT

Expert review of cardiovascular therapy, 2021

139 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an important validated technique for patients with dyssynchrony and heart failure. However, the response rate to conventional resynchronization is approximately 50%; therefore, new techniques and schedules have emerged. This study aimed to evaluate the different clinical and echocardiographic variables of conventional versus multipoint cardiac resynchronization therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD: A systematic review was conducted of randomized clinical trials in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases on cardiac resynchronization intervention with multipoint stimulation clinical and echocardiographic outcomes evaluated before and 3 months after the intervention.

RESULTS: Three studies (N = 139) were ultimately selected, and 100% of patients had a New York Heart Association functional class of II-IV, QRS > 120 ms, and a left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%. Significantly greater improvement was observed in the functional class of patients who underwent multipoint versus conventional therapy. The final systolic volume and ejection fraction improved in the multipoint group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: The literature lacks sufficient randomized controlled studies to enable conclusions regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy responses using different strategies. Moreover, the improvement in functional class in the multipoint pacing group involved few patients and had slight…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 139 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free