Premium
Outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular quadripolar leads
Author(s) -
Yang Mei,
Li Xuping,
Liang Jinjun,
Asirvatham Samuel J.,
Espinosa Raul,
Li Yigang,
Friedman Paul A.,
Cha YongMei
Publication year - 2018
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.13388
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiac resynchronization therapy , cardiology , ejection fraction , hazard ratio , confidence interval , heart failure , lead (geology) , implant , surgery , geomorphology , geology
Background Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads provide a more optimal pacing configuration for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) than conventional bipolar leads. The objective of this study is to determine the clinical outcomes of CRT using quadripolar leads. Methods This study included 516 CRT patients who received bipolar LV leads (n = 278) or quadripolar LV leads (n = 238) from January 2013 to June 2016. Data were retrospectively collected from a prospective CRT database and electronic health records. CRT response to CRT was defined as >5% improvement in the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups. Results New York Heart Association Functional Classification and LVEF significantly improved in the quadripolar and bipolar groups after CRT. There was no difference in the all‐cause mortality rate. The implant success rate was significantly higher in the quadripolar group (100% vs 97.8%; P = 0.02). Quadripolar lead placement was an independent predictor of CRT response at 12 months (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–0.98; P = 0.04). The rate of LV lead–related complications requiring invasive lead revision or abandonment was significantly higher in the bipolar group (11.2% vs 4.6%; P = 0.007). Conclusions Quadripolar leads achieve similar CRT outcomes as bipolar LV leads but with a higher implant success rate and fewer procedure‐related complications.