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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BIVP) is an effective treatment, but non-responders are at a higher risk of death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations compared with CRT responders. The MORE-CRT MPP trial aimed to evaluate whether CRT with multipoint pacing (MPP) is associated with improved clinical outcomes in CRT non-responders. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy patients were treated with conventional BIVP for 6 months and then assessed for CRT response (left ventricular end-systolic volume relative reduction >15% vs. baseline). Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responders were 1:1 randomized to BIVP or MPP and followed for 6 months. The main endpoint of this secondary analysis was HF hospitalizations or all-cause mortality. Of 3724 CRT patients (67 ± 11 years, 1050 female), 1677 were non-responders and randomized to MPP or BIVP, of whom 1421 (722 MPP and 699 BIVP) had complete data. In a mean follow-up of 5 ± 1 months after randomization, MPP was associated with a lower incidence of HF hospitalizations or all-cause mortality [48/722 (6.64%)] compared with BIVP (73/699 (10.44%), RRR = 36% (95% CI=±4%), P = 0.0107). At multivariable analysis, MPP was associated with a lower occurrence of the main endpoint (odds ratio = 0.60, P = 0.0124). At logistic regression analysis, HF hospitalizations or all-cause death were lower with MPP vs. BIVP in the whole population and in many patients subgroups, e.g. ischaemic patients and patients with long (>105 ms) interventricular electrical delay. CONCLUSION: In the MORE-CRT MPP randomized trial, MPP was associated with a significant reduction of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations in prior non-responders to conventional biventricular pacing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".