Key result
The use of a quadripolar left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy resulted in a non-significant reduction in lead-related problems during 9-month follow-up compared to bipolar leads (23.8% vs. 42.9%, p=0.326).
Why the study?
Does a quadripolar left ventricular lead reduce lead-related problems compared to bipolar leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
42 consecutive patients with an indication for standard cardiac resynchronization therapy with an ICD…
Comparison
Quadripolar left ventricular lead for… vs Conventional bipolar left ventricular leads from…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
9 months
Authors
Loading...
No significant reduction in lead problems with quadripolar leads; leaves open any advantage and requires randomized confirmation in CRT.
Observational (n=42)
No
Does a quadripolar left ventricular lead reduce lead-related problems compared to bipolar leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 23.8% vs 42.9%
p-value: p=0.326
Quadripolar LV leads for CRT are feasible and may reduce the need for multiple leads during implantation compared to bipolar leads, with a non-significant trend toward fewer mid-term lead-related problems.
Arias et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=42). Quadripolar left ventricular lead (Quartet 1458Q) vs. Conventional bipolar left ventricular leads was evaluated on LV lead problems during follow-up (macro-dislodgement, phrenic stimulation, or lack of LV capture) (p=0.326). The use of a quadripolar left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy resulted in a non-significant reduction in lead-related problems during 9-month follow-up compared to bipolar leads (23.8% vs. 42.9%, p=0.326).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: