Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Multipoint left ventricular pacing improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with and without pressure-volume loop optimization: comparison of the long-term efficacy of two different programming strategies

  • Ciconte, Giuseppe1
  • Ćalović, Žarko1
  • McSpadden, Luke C.2
  • Ryu, Kyungmoo2
  • Mangual, Jan2
  • Caporaso, Igor3
  • Baldi, Mario1
  • Saviano, Massimo1
  • Cuko, Amarild1
  • Vitale, Raffaele1
  • Conti, Manuel1
  • Giannelli, Luigi1
  • Vicedomini, Gabriele1
  • Santinelli, Vincenzo1
  • Pappone, Carlo1
  • 1 IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Department of Arrhythmology, Piazza E. Malan, San Donato Milanese, MI, 20097, Italy , San Donato Milanese (Italy)
  • 2 Abbott, Sylmar, CA, USA , Sylmar (United States)
  • 3 Abbott, Milan, Italy , Milan (Italy)
Published Article
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
Publication Date
Nov 27, 2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10840-018-0480-6
Springer Nature


PurposeCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing (MultiPoint™ Pacing [MPP]) improves long-term LV reverse remodeling, though questions persist about how to program LV pacing vectors and delays. We evaluated if an empirical method of programming MPP vectors and delays between pacing pulses improved CRT response similar to pressure-volume loop (PVL) optimized MPP programming.MethodsPatients undergoing CRT implant (Quadra Assura MP™ CRT-D and Quartet™ LV lead) received MPP with programmed settings optimized either by PVL measurements at implant (PVL-OPT group) or empirically determined by maximizing the spatial separation between the two cathodes and minimal delays between the three ventricular pacing pulses (MAX-SEP group). CRT response was prospectively defined as a reduction in end-systolic volume (ESV) of ≥ 15% relative to baseline at 6 months as determined by a blinded observer.ResultsPatient characteristics at baseline (NYHA II–III, ejection fraction [EF] 27 ± 6%, QRS 151 ± 17 ms) were not significantly different between the PVL-OPT (n = 27) and MAX-SEP (n = 26) groups. During the follow-up period, there were no differences in the number of patients requiring reprogramming due to phrenic nerve stimulation or a high threshold for PVL-OPT vs. MAX-SEP (5/27 [19%] vs. 7/26 [27%], p = 0.53). After 6 months, ESV reduction, EF increase, and CRT response rate (RR) were similar for PVL-OPT vs. MAX-SEP (ESV − 20 ± 11 vs. − 22 ± 11%, p = 0.59; EF + 10 ± 4 vs. + 9 ± 7%, p = 0.53; RR 20/27 [74%] vs. 21/26 [81%], p = 0.74), while fewer patients in the PVL-OPT group experienced NYHA class reduction ≥ 2 (4/27 [15%] vs.15/26 [58%], p = 0.002).ConclusionsBoth evaluated methods of MPP programming resulted in similar CRT outcomes. Empirical MPP programming by maximum spatial separation of LV cathodes may be an effective, simple, and non-invasive alternative to pressure-volume optimization.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times