PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2007Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology12 citations

Long‐Term Performance of Coronary Sinus Leads Used for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

View Full Paper
AIAssunta IulianoGSGergana ShopovaASAntonio De Simone

Structured PICO

Does the use of bipolar versus unipolar coronary sinus leads affect long-term sensing and stimulation performance in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?

P
Population
109 patients (79 men), mean age 68 +/- 9 years, NYHA functional class 3.2 +/- 0.5, and left ventricular ejection fraction 25.6 +/- 6.6%, who underwent CRT (n = 45) or CRT-D (n = 64) systems implants for management of idiopathic (53%), ischemic (40%), or miscellaneous (7%) dilated cardiomyopathy.
I
Intervention
Bipolar coronary sinus (CS) leads (n=52)
C
Comparator
Unipolar coronary sinus (CS) leads (n=57)
O
Outcome
Long-term performance of coronary sinus leads (sensing performance, pacing impedance, and stimulation energy threshold) at median 33 months follow-upsurrogate

Long-term follow-up of coronary sinus leads in CRT reveals a significant increase in stimulation energy requirements, which is less marked with bipolar leads, while sensing performance remains stable.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the long-term performance of coronary sinus (CS) leads, which have an effect on the longevity of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems. METHODS: This study included 109 patients (79 men) whose mean age was 68 +/- 9 years, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class 3.2 +/- 0.5, and left ventricular ejection fraction 25.6 +/- 6.6%, and who underwent CRT (n = 45) or CRT-D (n = 64) systems implants for management of idiopathic (53%), ischemic (40%), or miscellaneous (7%) dilated cardiomyopathy. Unipolar (n = 57) or bipolar (n = 52) leads were placed into the CS venous system. RESULTS: At implant, no significant difference was observed between unipolar and bipolar leads with respect to mean sensing performance (14 +/- 6 mV vs 14 +/- 8 mV, P = 0.97), pacing impedance (875 +/- 234 ohms vs 943 +/- 331 ohms, P = 0.24), and stimulation energy threshold (2 +/- 3.2 muJ vs 1.13 +/- 1.5 muJ, P = 0.08). At a median follow-up of 33 months, a significant decrease in stimulation impedance and increase in stimulation energy threshold was observed with unipolar (689 +/- 122 vs 875 +/- 234 ohms, P < 0.01, and 8.34 +/- 10.4 muJ vs 2 +/- 3.2 muJ, P < 0.001, respectively) as well as with bipolar (735 +/- 268 ohms vs 943 +/- 331 ohms, P < 0.01, and 4.81 +/- 9.92 vs 1.13 +/- 1.5 muJ, P = 0.02, respectively) leads. No significant difference in sensing performance was observed with either type of lead (10 +/- 5 mV vs 14 +/- 6 mV and 10 +/- 6 mV vs 14 +/- 8 mV, respectively). At long-term follow-up, no significant difference among any sensing or stimulation parameter was observed between unipolar and bipolar leads. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, a significant increase in the energy required for stimulation was observed, whereas sensing performance remained unchanged. The increase in energy capture threshold was less marked with bipolar than with unipolar leads.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Iuliano et al. (2007) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1e85130a6b1b87af954565https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00603.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper