Literature DB >> 29759861

Reduced Mortality Associated With Quadripolar Compared to Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Mintu P Turakhia1, Michael Cao2, Avi Fischer3, Yelena Nabutovsky3, Laurence S Sloman3, Nirav Dalal3, Michael R Gold4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare survival, lead deactivation, and lead replacement with quadripolar versus bipolar leads using a retrospective cohort of patients with newly implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems.
BACKGROUND: In CRT, quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads offer alternative pacing sites and vectors not available with bipolar LV leads, which may improve the effectiveness of the therapy.
METHODS: Using nationwide data from device implant registration records of a single manufacturer, we identified patients with a de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillation (CRT-D) implanted between November 30, 2011, and May 31, 2013. Patients were followed for up to 24 months. The primary predictor was LV lead type (quadripolar Quartet [St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, Minnesota] LV lead or bipolar LV lead). The primary outcome was death and the secondary outcomes were LV lead replacement and deactivation.
RESULTS: Among 23,570 patients (69.5 ± 11.1 years of age; 28% female; median follow-up time 1.14 years), 18,406 had quadripolar and 5,164 had bipolar LV leads. The quadripolar and bipolar groups had 5.04 and 6.45 deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively (p < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, the quadripolar lead was associated with a lower risk of deactivation (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46 to 0.84; p = 0.002), replacement (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.83; p < 0.001), and death (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.86; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of CRT-D devices, use of a quadripolar, compared to a bipolar LV lead, was associated with a reduction in LV lead deactivation, replacement, and mortality.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac resynchronization therapy; comparative effectiveness; left ventricular leads; outcomes; quadripolar

Year:  2016        PMID: 29759861     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.02.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 2405-500X


  9 in total

Review 1.  Current developments in cardiac rhythm management devices.

Authors:  Philipp Halbfass; Kai Sonne; Karin Nentwich; Elena Ene; Thomas Deneke
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 2.  Non-response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Authors:  Syed Yaseen Naqvi; Anas Jawaid; Ilan Goldenberg; Valentina Kutyifa
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2018-10

3.  Myocardial recovery after cardiac resynchronization therapy in left bundle branch block-associated idiopathic nonischemic cardiomyopathy: A NEOLITH II substudy.

Authors:  Norman C Wang; Aliza Hussain; Evan C Adelstein; Andrew D Althouse; Michael S Sharbaugh; Sandeep K Jain; Alaa A Shalaby; Andrew H Voigt; Samir Saba
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 4.  Next-generation pacemakers: from small devices to biological pacemakers.

Authors:  Eugenio Cingolani; Joshua I Goldhaber; Eduardo Marbán
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 32.419

5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Advances in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Authors:  Asif Jafferani; Miguel A Leal
Journal:  J Innov Card Rhythm Manag       Date:  2019-06-15

8.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing in a patient with cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction.

Authors:  Cristiano Massacesi; Laura Ceriello; Enrico Di Girolamo
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2019-05-16

9.  An active fixation quadripolar left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy with reduced postoperative complication rates.

Authors:  Calum Robertson; Owen Duffey; Pok-Tin Tang; Natalie Fairhurst; Cristiana Monteiro; Peregrine Green; Joanna Grogono; Mark Davies; Andrew Lewis; Rohan Wijesurendra; Julian Ormerod; James Gamble; Matthew Ginks; Kim Rajappan; Yaver Bashir; Tim R Betts; Neil Herring
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 2.942

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.