Key result
Quadripolar leads with repetitive optimized pacing did not significantly increase 6-month CRT response rate vs conventional bipolar leads (80.8% vs 68.0%, p=0.30), but significantly improved LVEF.
Why the study?
Does repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations with quadripolar leads improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure?
RCT (n=52)
Double-blind
1:1
No
Does repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations with quadripolar leads improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quadripolar leads with repeated LVPC optimization improve 6-month CRT response and remodeling; extends single-optimization RCT evidence for tailored programming.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate whether repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations (LVPCs) with quadripolar leads (QUAD) can improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: Fifty-two eligible patients were enrolled and 1:1 randomized to either the quadripolar LV leads (QUAD) group or the conventional bipolar leads (CONV) group. In the QUAD group, optimization of LVPC was performed for all patients before discharge and for nonresponders at 3 months follow-up. Clinical evaluations and transthoracic echocardiograms were performed before, 3, and 6 months after CRT implantation. RESULTS: At 3 months follow-up, 16 of 25 (64%) patients in the CONV group (1 patient was lost to follow-up) and 18 of 26 (69%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders. After optimizing the LVPCs in 3-month nonresponders in the QUAD group, 21 of 26 (80.8%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders at 6 months as compared with 17 of 25 (68%) patients in the CONV group. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increase, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction at 6 months were significantly greater in the QUAD group than in the CONV group (LVESV: -26.9 ± 13.8 vs -17.2 ± 13.3%; P = .013; LVEF: +12.7 ± 8.0 vs +7.8 ± 6.3 percentage points; P = .017; NYHA: -1.27 ± 0.67 vs -0.72 ± 0.54 functional classes; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional bipolar leads, CRT using quadripolar leads with repetitive optimized LVPCs resulted in an additional increase in LVEF and reduction in LVESV and NYHA functional class at 6-month follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gu et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=52). Quadripolar left ventricular leads with repetitive optimized pacing configurations vs. Conventional bipolar left ventricular leads was evaluated on Response rate to CRT at 6 months (p=0.30). Quadripolar leads with repetitive optimized pacing did not significantly increase 6-month CRT response rate vs conventional bipolar leads (80.8% vs 68.0%, p=0.30), but significantly improved LVEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: