Literature DB >> 26821688

Outcome of Patients Treated by Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Using a Quadripolar Left Ventricular Lead.

Gianluigi Bencardino1, Antonio Di Monaco, Eleonora Russo, Cristian Colizzi, Francesco Perna, Gemma Pelargonio, Maria Lucia Narducci, Francesca Augusta Gabrielli, Gaetano Antonio Lanza, Antonio Giuseppe Rebuzzi, Filippo Crea.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Not all heart failure (HF) patients benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We assessed whether choosing the site of left ventricular (LV) pacing by a quadripolar lead may improve response to CRT. METHODS AND 
RESULTS: We prospectively randomized 23 patients with HF (67±11 years; 21 males) to CRT with a quadripolar LV lead (group 1, with the LV pacing site chosen on the basis of QRS shortening using simultaneous biventricular pacing), and 20 patients (71±6 years; 16 males) to a bipolar LV lead (group 2, with devices programmed with a conventional tip-to-ring configuration). New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and LV ejection fraction (EF) by 2D echocardiography were assessed at baseline and after 3 months. The baseline EF was not different between the 2 groups (25±6% group 1 vs. 27±3% group 2; P=0.22), but after 3 months EF was higher in group 1 (35±13% group 1 vs. 31±4% group 2; P<0.001). A reduction in at least 1 NYHA class at 3 months was observed in 22 (96%) and 12 (60%) of group 1 and group 2 patients, respectively (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: CRT with a quadripolar LV lead was associated with an improvement of EF greater than that observed in patients receiving a bipolar LV lead. In devices with a quadripolar lead, CRT programming based on the best QRS shortening is reliable and effective. (Circ J 2016; 80: 613-618).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26821688     DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-15-0932

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ J        ISSN: 1346-9843            Impact factor:   2.993


  5 in total

1.  Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Feng Hu; Lihui Zheng; Ligang Ding; Zhongpeng Du; Erpeng Liang; Lingmin Wu; Gang Chen; Xiaohan Fan; Yan Yao; Yu Jiang
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.214

2.  Six months clinical outcome comparison between quadripolar and bipolar left ventricular leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: A prospective, non-randomized, single-centre observational study.

Authors:  Ajay Raj; Ajay Pratap Singh; Ranjit Kumar Nath; Neeraj Pandit; Puneet Aggarwal; Ashok Kumar Thakur; Rajeev Bharadwaj; Vinod Kumar
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2021-02-23

3.  Short-Term Availability of Viable Left Ventricular Pacing Sites with Quartet™ Quadripolar Leads.

Authors:  Min Gu; Wei Hua; Xiao-Han Fan; Li-Gang Ding; Jing Wang; Hong-Xia Niu; Cong Xu; Han Jin; Shu Zhang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-02-11

4.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing via quadripolar lead versus traditional biventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on hemodynamic, clinical, and prognostic parameters.

Authors:  Cristiano Massacesi; Laura Ceriello; Fabrizio Maturo; Annamaria Porreca; Marianna Appignani; Enrico Di Girolamo
Journal:  Heart Rhythm O2       Date:  2021-12-17

Review 5.  The Role of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for the Management of Functional Mitral Regurgitation.

Authors:  Eleonora Russo; Giulio Russo; Mauro Cassese; Maurizio Braccio; Massimo Carella; Paolo Compagnucci; Antonio Dello Russo; Michela Casella
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 7.666

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.