Giuseppe Stabile1, Valter Bianchi2, Francesco Solimene3, Assunta Iuliano4, Quintino Parisi5, Patrizia Pepi6, Mario Bocchiardo7, Francesco Urraro3, Antonio De Simone8, Roberto Ospizio9, Antonio D'Onofrio2. 1. Clinica Mediterranea, Via Orazio 2, 80122, Naples, Italy. gmrstabile@tin.it. 2. Ospedale dei Colli-Monaldi, Piazzale Ettore Ruggieri, 80131, Naples, Italy. 3. Clinica Montevergine, Via Mario Malzoni, 5, 83013, Mercogliano, AV, Italy. 4. Clinica Mediterranea, Via Orazio 2, 80122, Naples, Italy. 5. Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura Giovanni Paolo II, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy. 6. Ospedale Carlo Poma, Str. Lago Paiolo, 10, 46100, Mantova, Italy. 7. Ospedale Santa Corona, Viale 25 Aprile, 38, 17027, Pietra Ligure, SV, Italy. 8. Clinica San Michele, Via Appia 171, 81024, Maddaloni, CE, Italy. 9. Boston Scientific Italia, Viale Enrico Forlanini, 23, 20134, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Identifying the left ventricular (LV) site associated with the maximum spontaneous interventricular conduction time (right ventricle (RV)-to-LV interval) has proved to be an effective strategy for optimal LV pacing site selection in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of our study was to determine whether quadripolar LV lead technology allows RV-to-LV interval maximization. METHODS: We enrolled 108 patients undergoing implantation of a CRT system using an LV quadripolar lead and 114 patients who received a bipolar lead. On implantation, the RV-to-LV interval was measured for the dipole of the bipolar leads and for each electrode of the LV lead (tip, ring 2, ring 3, ring 4). RESULTS: In the quadripolar group, the mean RV-to-LV interval ranged from 90 ± 33 ms (tip) to 94 ± 32 ms (R4) (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). In 55 (51%) patients, the RV-to-LV interval was > 80 ms at all electrodes, while in 27 (25%) patients, no electrodes were associated with an RV-to-LV interval > 80 ms. At least one LV pacing electrode was associated with an RV-to-LV interval > 80 ms in 62 (70%) patients with a short (36 mm) inter-electrode distance, and in 19 (95%, p = 0.022) of those with a long distance (50.5 mm). In the bipolar group, the mean RV-to-LV interval was 72 ± 37 ms (p < 0.001 versus quadripolar). The RV-to-LV interval was > 80 ms in 44 (39%) patients (p < 0.001 versus quadripolar leads with both short and long inter-electrode distance). CONCLUSIONS: Quadripolar leads allow RV-to-LV interval maximization. An optimal RV-to-LV interval seems achievable in the majority of patients, especially if the leads present a long inter-electrode distance.
PURPOSE: Identifying the left ventricular (LV) site associated with the maximum spontaneous interventricular conduction time (right ventricle (RV)-to-LV interval) has proved to be an effective strategy for optimal LV pacing site selection in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of our study was to determine whether quadripolar LV lead technology allows RV-to-LV interval maximization. METHODS: We enrolled 108 patients undergoing implantation of a CRT system using an LV quadripolar lead and 114 patients who received a bipolar lead. On implantation, the RV-to-LV interval was measured for the dipole of the bipolar leads and for each electrode of the LV lead (tip, ring 2, ring 3, ring 4). RESULTS: In the quadripolar group, the mean RV-to-LV interval ranged from 90 ± 33 ms (tip) to 94 ± 32 ms (R4) (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). In 55 (51%) patients, the RV-to-LV interval was > 80 ms at all electrodes, while in 27 (25%) patients, no electrodes were associated with an RV-to-LV interval > 80 ms. At least one LV pacing electrode was associated with an RV-to-LV interval > 80 ms in 62 (70%) patients with a short (36 mm) inter-electrode distance, and in 19 (95%, p = 0.022) of those with a long distance (50.5 mm). In the bipolar group, the mean RV-to-LV interval was 72 ± 37 ms (p < 0.001 versus quadripolar). The RV-to-LV interval was > 80 ms in 44 (39%) patients (p < 0.001 versus quadripolar leads with both short and long inter-electrode distance). CONCLUSIONS: Quadripolar leads allow RV-to-LV interval maximization. An optimal RV-to-LV interval seems achievable in the majority of patients, especially if the leads present a long inter-electrode distance.
Authors: Suneet Mittal; Devi Nair; Benzy J Padanilam; Allen Ciuffo; Nigel Gupta; Peter Gallagher; Bruce Goldner; Eric F Hammill; Nicolas Wold; Kenneth Stein; Martin Burke Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2016-08-19
Authors: Giuseppe Stabile; Antonio D'Onofrio; Patrizia Pepi; Antonio De Simone; Matteo Santamaria; Salvatore Ivan Caico; Antonio Rapacciuolo; Luigi Padeletti; Domenico Pecora; Tiziana Giovannini; Giuseppe Arena; Alfredo Spotti; Assunta Iuliano; Emanuele Bertaglia; Maurizio Malacrida; Giovanni Luca Botto Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: François Philippon; Lili Liu; Jeffrey Wing-Hong Fung; Jean-Claude Deharo; Frederic Anselme; Peter Paul Delnoy; Harry Crijns; Carlos A Morillo; Andrew D Krahn; Klaus Gutleben; Julien Delumeau; Franck Molin Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Giuseppe Stabile; Assunta Iuliano; Vincenzo La Rocca; Francesco Solimene; Roberta Fazio; Antonio De Simone Journal: Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther Date: 2014-05-22
Authors: E Kevin Heist; Dali Fan; Theofanie Mela; Daniel Arzola-Castaner; Vivek Y Reddy; Moussa Mansour; Michael H Picard; Jeremy N Ruskin; Jagmeet P Singh Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jagmeet P Singh; Dali Fan; E Kevin Heist; Chrisfouad R Alabiad; Cynthia Taub; Vivek Reddy; Moussa Mansour; Michael H Picard; Jeremy N Ruskin; Theofanie Mela Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Michael R Gold; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Jagmeet P Singh; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Yinghong Yu; Timothy E Meyer; Milan Seth; Patrick J Tchou Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983