MORE-CRT MPP (secondary analysis)
Trial question
What is the effect of CRT with multipoint pacing in patients not responding to CRT?
Study design
Multi-center
Open label
RCT
Population
Characteristics of study participants
23.0% female
77.0% male
N = 1421
1421 patients (328 female, 1093 male).
Inclusion criteria: patients without reverse remodeling at 6 months follow-up after conventional biventricular pacing.
Key exclusion criteria: CRT device implanted; MI or unstable angina in the past 40 days; cardiac revascularization in the past 4 weeks; cerebrovascular accident or TIA in the past 3 months; primary valvular disease; AF.
Interventions
N=722 multipoint pacing (implantation of multipoint pacing compatible CRT [MultiPoint™]).
N=699 biventricular pacing (CRT via biventricular pacing).
Primary outcome
Heart failure hospitalizations or death
6.64%
10.44%
10.4 %
7.8 %
5.2 %
2.6 %
0.0 %
Multipoint
pacing
Biventricular
pacing
Significant
decrease ▼
NNT = 26
Significant decrease in HF hospitalizations or death (6.64% vs. 10.44%; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.13).
Secondary outcomes
Significant decrease in HF hospitalizations (5.4% vs. 8.9%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.1).
No significant difference in death (1.9% vs. 2.9%; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0 to 1.32).
Conclusion
In patients without reverse remodeling at 6 months follow-up after conventional biventricular pacing, multipoint pacing was superior to biventricular pacing with respect to HF hospitalizations or death.
Reference
Christophe Leclercq, Haran Burri, Leonardo Calò et al. Multipoint pacing is associated with reduction of heart failure hospitalizations or death in patients who do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Results of the MORE-CRT MPP randomized trial. Europace. 2025 Mar 30:euaf070. Online ahead of print.
Open reference URL