Mohit K Turagam1, Muhammad R Afzal2, Sandia Iskander2, Luigi Di Biase3, Andrea Natale4, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, Columbia, MO. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of Kansas Hospital & Medical Center, Kansas City, KS. 3. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY. 4. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David's Medical Center, Austin, TX.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis from eligible studies to analyze the true impact of QL when compared with BL with regard to post-procedural outcomes including lead deactivation, revision or replacement. Background: Many observational and retrospective studies showed that quadripolar left ventricular leads (QL) are associated with better outcomes and fewer complications when compared with bipolar leads (BL). Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search through June 30, 2015 using: quadripolar, bipolar, left ventricular lead and CRT in Pubmed, Ebsco and google scholar databases. Results: The analysis included 8 studies comparing QL and BL implantation. Post-procedural outcomes such as lead deactivation, revision or replacement were used as primary outcome and assessed with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR). Secondary outcomes included total fluoroscopy/procedure time, occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) and all-cause mortality on follow up. Follow-up duration for the studies ranged from 3 to 60 months. Compared with BL, the use of QL is associated with 52 % reduction (relative risk 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36-0.64, p=0.00001) in the risk of deactivation, revision or replacement of the LV lead. QL had significantly lower fluoroscopy/procedure time, PNS and all-cause mortality when compared with BL. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis shows that QL implantation was associated with decreased risk of LV lead deactivation, revision or replacement when compared with BL.
Objective: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis from eligible studies to analyze the true impact of QL when compared with BL with regard to post-procedural outcomes including lead deactivation, revision or replacement. Background: Many observational and retrospective studies showed that quadripolar left ventricular leads (QL) are associated with better outcomes and fewer complications when compared with bipolar leads (BL). Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search through June 30, 2015 using: quadripolar, bipolar, left ventricular lead and CRT in Pubmed, Ebsco and google scholar databases. Results: The analysis included 8 studies comparing QL and BL implantation. Post-procedural outcomes such as lead deactivation, revision or replacement were used as primary outcome and assessed with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR). Secondary outcomes included total fluoroscopy/procedure time, occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) and all-cause mortality on follow up. Follow-up duration for the studies ranged from 3 to 60 months. Compared with BL, the use of QL is associated with 52 % reduction (relative risk 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36-0.64, p=0.00001) in the risk of deactivation, revision or replacement of the LV lead. QL had significantly lower fluoroscopy/procedure time, PNS and all-cause mortality when compared with BL. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis shows that QL implantation was associated with decreased risk of LV lead deactivation, revision or replacement when compared with BL.
Authors: Jean Champagne; Jeffrey S Healey; Andrew D Krahn; Francois Philippon; Osnat Gurevitz; Anne Swearingen; Michael Glikson Journal: Europace Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Giovanni B Forleo; Luigi Di Biase; Germana Panattoni; Massimo Mantica; Quintino Parisi; Annamaria Martino; Augusto Pappalardo; Domenico Sergi; Manfredi Tesauro; Lida P Papavasileiou; Luca Santini; Leonardo Calò; Claudio Tondo; Andrea Natale; Francesco Romeo Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Johannes Sperzel; Wilfried Dänschel; Klaus-Jürgen Gutleben; Wolfgang Kranig; Peter Mortensen; Derek Connelly; Hans-Joachim Trappe; Karlheinz Seidl; Gabor Duray; Burkert Pieske; Jochem Stockinger; Giuseppe Boriani; Werner Jung; Richard Schilling; Linda Saberi; Benoit Hallier; Marcus Simon; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Europace Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maximo Rivero-Ayerza; Wilma Scholte Op Reimer; Mattie Lenzen; Dominic A M J Theuns; Luc Jordaens; Michel Komajda; Ferenc Follath; Karl Swedberg; John G F Cleland Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-05-31 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Arthur J Moss; W Jackson Hall; David S Cannom; Helmut Klein; Mary W Brown; James P Daubert; N A Mark Estes; Elyse Foster; Henry Greenberg; Steven L Higgins; Marc A Pfeffer; Scott D Solomon; David Wilber; Wojciech Zareba Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D Gras; D Böcker; M Lunati; H J J Wellens; M Calvert; N Freemantle; R Gervais; L Kappenberger; L Tavazzi; E Erdmann; J G F Cleland; J-C Daubert Journal: Europace Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 5.214