Premium
Improvement in Hemodynamic Response Using a Quadripolar LV Lead
Author(s) -
CABRERA BUENO FERNANDO,
ALZUETA RODRÍGUEZ JAVIER,
OLAGÜE DE ROS JOSÉ,
FERNÁNDEZLOZANO IGNACIO,
GARCÍA GUERRERO JUAN JOSÉ,
DE LA CONCHA JOAQUÍN FERNÁNDEZ,
HERNÁNDEZ MADRID ANTONIO,
TOLOSANA VIU JOSE MARÍA,
OSCA ASENSI JOAQUÍN,
BARRERA CORDERO ALBERTO,
LLORENTE HERNANGÓMEZ ELENA
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.12172
Subject(s) - medicine , lead (geology) , ventricle , cardiac resynchronization therapy , hemodynamics , cardiology , heart failure , ejection fraction , geomorphology , geology
Background The Quartet™ quadripolar lead (St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA) offers 10 different left ventricle pacing configurations that may further influence hemodynamic parameters compared to traditional bipolar pacing configurations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether pacing from additional quadripolar lead vectors could enhance cardiac output (CO). Methods For each patient, CO was measured in “no‐pacing” and in all the 10 configurations available, within 7 days of implantation of the device. Tip‐ring, tip‐right ventricular coil (RVC), and ring‐RVC vectors were considered as traditional vectors. The seven additional configurations available in the quadripolar lead were considered as nontraditional vectors. CO was measured by ECHO. The best configuration was defined as the one presenting the highest CO measurement within configurations, which have a capture threshold <3 V and a safety margin between the capture and the phrenic nerve stimulation thresholds. Results Fifty‐one standard cardiac resynchronization therapy patients were enrolled. The mean of each patient's best CO obtained with traditional vectors was higher than the baseline nonpaced CO (4.16 L/min vs 3.64 L/min). The mean of each patient's best CO, including all 10 available configurations, was also higher than the baseline nonpaced CO (4.33 L/min vs 3.64 L/min). In addition, the mean of each patient's best CO obtained with the best configuration available through a quadripolar lead was better than the mean of each patient's best CO obtained with a traditional configuration. In 53% of patients, the best CO was obtained with a nontraditional vector unique to the quadripolar lead. Conclusions A quadripolar lead offers multiple additional pacing options to increase CO acutely compared to conventional bipolar leads.