Quadripolar left ventricular leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to bipolar leads (13.2% vs. 22.5%, P<0.001) over 5 years.
Cohort (n=721)
Yes
Does the use of quadripolar left ventricular leads compared to bipolar leads reduce mortality and improve lead performance in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
The use of quadripolar LV leads for CRT is associated with significantly lower long-term all-cause mortality and improved ability to eliminate phrenic nerve stimulation compared to bipolar leads.
Absolute Event Rate: 13.2% vs 22.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads provides more pacing vectors compared to bipolar leads. This may avoid phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) and allow optimal lead placement to maximize biventricular pacing. However, a long-term improvement in patient outcome has yet to be demonstrated. METHODS: A total of 721 consecutive patients with conventional CRTD criteria implanted with quadripolar (n = 357) or bipolar (n = 364) LV leads were enrolled into a registry at 3 UK centers. Lead performance and mortality was analyzed over a 5-year period. RESULTS: Patients receiving a quadripolar lead were of similar age and sex to those receiving a bipolar lead, although a lower proportion had ischemic heart disease (62.6% vs. 54.1%, P = 0.02). Both groups had similar rates of procedural success, although lead threshold, impedance, and procedural radiation dose were significantly lower in those receiving a quadripolar lead. PNS was more common in those with quadripolar leads (16.0% vs. 11.6%, P = 0.08), but was eliminated by switching pacing vector in all cases compared with 60% in the bipolar group (P < 0.001). Furthermore, LV lead displacement (1.7% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.03) and repositioning (2.0% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.03) occurred significantly less often in those with a quadripolar lead. All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the quadripolar compared to bipolar lead group in univariate and multivariate analysis (13.2% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, multicenter experience, the use of quadripolar LV leads for CRT was associated with elimination of PNS and lower overall mortality. This has important implications for LV pacing lead choice.
Behar et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=721). Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads vs. Bipolar left ventricular (LV) leads was evaluated on All-cause mortality (p=<0.001). Quadripolar left ventricular leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to bipolar leads (13.2% vs. 22.5%, P<0.001) over 5 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: