PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 22, 2026Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology0 citationsOpen Access

Exercise Capacity and the Force Frequency Relationship in Multi‐Point Versus Single‐Point Pacing: A Randomized Trial

View Full Paper
NSNawaz Z. SafdarRGRia GadaniCCCharlotte Cole

Key Result

Multipoint pacing acutely improved resting LV contractility (2.29 vs. 2.03 mmHg/mL/m 2, p=0.019) but showed no long-term or exercise capacity benefits over single-point pacing.

Key Points

  • This research aimed to compare the effects of multi-point pacing versus single-point pacing on heart function and exercise capacity in heart failure patients.
  • Conducted a randomized crossover study with echocardiographic assessments.
  • Evaluated LV contractility and exercise capacity at 6 weeks and 6 months post-implantation.
  • Participants were then randomized in a parallel-group design for further 6 months of pacing.
  • LV contractility was significantly higher with multi-point pacing at resting heart rates immediately after implantation.
  • No differences in contractility were found at higher heart rates or after 6 months.
  • Exercise performance showed no statistically significant differences between pacing methods at any time point.

Structured PICO

Does multipoint pacing improve LV contractility and exercise capacity compared to single-point pacing in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving CRT?

P
Population
23 individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), mean age 73 years, 91% male, 91% NYHA class II, mean LVEF 31.3%.
I
Intervention
Multipoint pacing (MPP) using quadripolar left ventricular epicardial leads
C
Comparator
Single-point pacing (SPP)
O
Outcome
LV contractility and exercise capacity (assessed by echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing)surrogate

Multipoint pacing improves acute resting LV contractility compared to single-point pacing in HFrEF patients receiving CRT, but does not provide sustained mechanistic or exercise capacity benefits.

Abstract

Abstract Background Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) epicardial leads capable of multipoint pacing (MPP) may have an advantage over conventional bipolar leads for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by stimulating the lateral LV wall from two distinct locations simultaneously. Aim We aimed to determine the acute and longer‐term effects of MPP compared with single‐point pacing (SPP) on LV contractility and exercise capacity in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving CRT. Methods Participants were enrolled into a randomized crossover study with echocardiographic assessment of the comparative effects of acute MPP and SPP on LV contractility and cardiopulmonary exercise testing at 6‐weeks and 6‐months following device implantation. Participants were then randomized in a parallel‐group study to either MPP or SPP for further 6‐months. Results Twenty‐three participants (mean age 73 years 95% confidence interval: 69, 78, 91% male, 91% New York Heart Association NYHA class II, LV ejection fraction 31.3% 27.4, 35.1) were included. At resting heart rates, LV contractility was significantly higher with MPP compared to SPP (2.29 mmHg/mL/m 2 1.74, 2.84 vs. 2.03 1.58, 2.47; p = 0.019). However, it was not different between MPP and SPP at higher heart rates or at 6‐months, and there were no differences in exercise performance between MPP and SPP at any point including following 6 months of chronic treatment. Conclusion Although CRT with MPP resulted in improved LV contractility at resting heart rates acutely post implantation, it did not translate into consistent mechanistic or patient‐orientated benefits in the short or longer‐term.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Safdar et al. (2026) studied this question. Multipoint pacing acutely improved resting LV contractility (2.29 vs. 2.03 mmHg/mL/m 2, p=0.019) but showed no long-term or exercise capacity benefits over single-point pacing.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699a9d50482488d673cd315ahttps://doi.org/10.1111/pace.70164
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper