Quadripolar left ventricular leads decrease revision rates compared to bipolar leads due to lower rates of phrenic nerve stimulation and pacing thresholds, though clinical outcomes are unaffected.
Does the use of quadripolar left ventricular leads improve lead performance and clinical outcomes compared to bipolar leads in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Quadripolar LV leads should be the first choice for CRT due to reduced lead revisions and lower pacing thresholds, despite no difference in mortality or hospitalizations compared to bipolar leads.
INTRODUCTION: In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, transvenous left ventricular (LV) leads are more prone to instability, high pacing thresholds, and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) that may necessitate lead revision, replacement in a suboptimal position, or deactivation of the lead. To overcome some of these challenges, quadripolar (QP) LV leads have been developed and accounted for over 90% of implanted LV leads 5 years after they were introduced. AREAS COVERED: This review provides an overview of the current evidence of implanting QP leads in CRT as compared with traditional bipolar (BP) leads including details about feasibility, safety and lead performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. EXPERT OPINION: Based on the current literature, implantation with a QP lead decreases revision rates but does not affect any clinical outcomes including mortality, hospitalization, symptoms, or echocardiographic parameters. Feasibility and stability do not differ between QP and BP leads. A QP lead should be preferred as first choice over a BP lead due to lower rates of PNS and lower pacing thresholds leading to less frequent lead revisions and battery replacements. In addition, this strategy may be cost saving despite a higher price of QP leads.
Fyenbo et al. (Thu,) conducted a review in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Quadripolar (QP) left ventricular leads vs. Traditional bipolar (BP) leads was evaluated. Quadripolar left ventricular leads decrease revision rates compared to bipolar leads due to lower rates of phrenic nerve stimulation and pacing thresholds, though clinical outcomes are unaffected.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: