Improved acute haemodynamic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy using multipoint pacing cannot solely be explained by better resynchronization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recently developed quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads have been developed to increase the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These leads offer the option to stimulate the LV on multiple sites (multipoint pacing, MPP). Invasive haemodynamic measurements have shown that MPP increases haemodynamic response. PURPOSE: To investigate whether the beneficial effect of MPP can be explained by better electrical resynchronization. METHODS: Different LV lead locations were tested during biventricular (BiV) pacing and MPP in 29 CRT candidates. The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and the invasive LV pressure curves were measured simultaneously. The Kors matrix was used to convert the ECG into a vectorcardiogram (VCG). The acute haemodynamic benefit of MPP was compared with the reduction in QRS duration and VCG-derived QRS area. RESULTS: Out of the 29 patients, three patients were excluded due to missing LV pressures or ECG measurements. In the remaining 26 patients MPP resulted in a significant haemodynamic improvement compared to BiV pacing without a significant change in QRS duration and QRS area. In only 5 out of the 26 patients the QRS area decreased during MPP compared to BiV pacing. In 17 patients MPP did not change QRS duration and significantly increased QRS area but moved the direction of the maximal QRS vector (azimuth) more opposite from baseline compared to BiV pacing. In 4 patients the QRS area was small during baseline, indicating limited electrical dyssynchrony. CONCLUSION: The acute haemodynamic benefit of MPP over BiV pacing is achieved by either electrical resynchronization (reduction in QRS area) or by a rotation of the maximal QRS vector, indicating a more LV dominated activation sequence. The latter property was found in two-thirds of the cohort studied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".