English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background  Conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy ( CRT , Bi‐V) is associated with no response in about 40% patients due to an insufficient resynchronization. Some studies showed triple‐site ventricular (Tri‐V) pacing had greater benefits compared with Bi‐V pacing, but the results of these studies were conflicting. We hypothesized that Tri‐V pacing had greater benefits on long‐term outcomes compared with Bi‐V pacing in patients with heart failure.    Methods  PubMed,  EMBASE , and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical studies with related outcomes. Weighted mean differences ( WMD ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CI s) were calculated to compare the change in left ventricular ejection fraction ( LVEF ), left ventricular geometry, functional capacity, and quality of life between Tri‐V pacing group and control group.    Results  Five trials with 251 patients were included in the analysis. Patients in the Tri‐V pacing group had a greater improvement in  LVEF  ( WMD  4.04; 95%  CI  2.15‐5.92,  P  < .001) and  NYHA  classes ( WMD  −0.27; 95%  CI  −0.42 to −0.11,  P  = .001) compared with control group. However, there were no significant differences in left ventricular geometry, six‐min walk distance, or Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score between the two groups. The subgroup analyses showed there might be a greater improvement in  LVEF  in the Tri‐V pacing group in patients with  QRS  duration ≥ 155 ms ( WMD  5.60; 95%  CI  3.09‐8.10,  P  < .001).    Conclusions  The present analysis suggests that Tri‐V pacing has greater benefits in terms of an improvement in  LVEF  and functional capacity in patients with systolic heart failure, especially in patients with the duration of  QRS  ≥ 155 ms.

journal of arrhythmia

Comparison of triple‐site ventricular pacing versus conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with systolic heart failure: A meta‐analysis of randomized and observational studies