Key result
Quadripolar left ventricular leads independently predicted CRT response at 12 months (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58-0.98; P=0.04) and had fewer complications than bipolar leads (4.6% vs 11.2%; P=0.007).
Why the study?
Do quadripolar left ventricular leads improve CRT response and reduce complications compared to bipolar leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
516 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) from January 2013 to June 2016
Comparison
Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads vs Bipolar left ventricular (LV) leads
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
12 months
Authors
Loading...
Quadripolar LV leads associated with better CRT outcomes in this retrospective cohort; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=516)
Do quadripolar left ventricular leads improve CRT response and reduce complications compared to bipolar leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 0.76 (95% CI 0.58–0.98)
p-value: p=0.04
Quadripolar LV leads for CRT provide similar clinical outcomes to bipolar leads but are associated with higher implant success rates and fewer procedure-related complications.
Yang et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=516). Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads vs. Bipolar LV leads was evaluated on CRT response (>5% improvement in LVEF from baseline) at 12 months (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.98, p=0.04). Quadripolar left ventricular leads independently predicted CRT response at 12 months (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58-0.98; P=0.04) and had fewer complications than bipolar leads (4.6% vs 11.2%; P=0.007).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: