Key result
Quadripolar LV leads cut lead deactivation, revision, or replacement ~52% vs bipolar leads in CRT.
Why the study?
Does the use of quadripolar left ventricular leads reduce the risk of lead deactivation, revision, or replacement in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy compared to bipolar leads?
Meta-Analysis (n=26,657)
Does the use of quadripolar left ventricular leads reduce the risk of lead deactivation, revision, or replacement in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy compared to bipolar leads?
Effect estimate: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.36-0.64)
p-value: p=0.00001
In patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy, the use of quadripolar left ventricular leads significantly reduces the risk of lead deactivation, revision, or replacement, as well as procedure time, phrenic nerve stimulation, and all-cause mortality compared to bipolar leads.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quadripolar leads merit first-line CRT use to minimize revisions; confirms lower deactivation risk versus bipolar leads.
Turagam et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) (n=26,657). Quadripolar left ventricular lead (QL) vs. Bipolar left ventricular lead (BL) was evaluated on Lead deactivation, revision or replacement (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.64, p=0.00001). Quadripolar left ventricular leads reduced the risk of lead deactivation, revision, or replacement by 52% (RR 0.48) compared to bipolar leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: