Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected patients with systolic heart failure. Unlike conventional biventricular pacing (BIP), the left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) can increase the number of left ventricular pacing sites via a quadripolar lead positioned in the coronary sinus. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the clinical outcome of MPP in comparison with BIP. We systematically searched the databases of EMBASE, Ovid medline, and Cochrane Library through May 2018 for studies comparing the clinical outcome of MPP with BIP in the patients who accepted CRT. Hospitalization for reason of heart failure, left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), CRT response, all-cause morbidity, and cardiovascular death rate was collected for meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 29,606 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with BIP group, MPP decreased heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.50; P < 0.00001), improved LVEF (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, 3.11 to 6.83; P < 0.00001), increased CRT response (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.68 to 7.87; P = 0.001), and decreased all-cause morbidity (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.66; P = 0.0002) and cardiovascular death rate (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < 0.00001). The published literature demonstrates that MPP was more effective than BIP in the heart failure patients who accepted cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Leadless pacing

Leadless self-contained intracardiac pacemakers were developed with the aim of abolishing the short- and long-term risk of lead- and pocket-related complications associated with transvenous devices. Leadless pacemakers promise minimally invasive procedures, long battery lives, and small amounts of foreign materials in the body. Experiences with the pioneering single-chamber devices have provided reasons for optimism about the future of the leadless concept. In the future, as more patients receive and live longer with implantable devices, the total risk of procedure- and lead-related complications is expected to increase, adding a sense of urgency to the need for leadless alternatives to transvenous pacemakers. This review surveys the performance of currently available leadless pacemakers as well as emerging new innovative adaptations and applications of the leadless concept.