BACKGROUND: Usage of active fixation bipolar left ventricular (LV) leads represents an alternative approach to the more commonly used passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We compared a bipolar LV lead with a side screw for active fixation and passive fixation quadripolar LV leads. METHODS: Sixty-two patients were before CRT implantations randomly allocated to receive a bipolar (n = 31) or quadripolar (n = 31) LV leads. Speckle-tracking radial strain echocardiography was used to define the LV segment with latest mechanical activation as the target LV segment. The electrophysiological measurements and the capability to obtain a proximal position in a coronary vein placed over the target segment were assessed. RESULTS: Upon implantation, the quadripolar lead demonstrated a lower pacing capture threshold than the bipolar lead, but at follow-up, there was no difference. There were no differences in the LV lead implant times or radiation doses. The success rate in reaching the target location was not significantly different between the two LV leads. CONCLUSIONS: The pacing capture thresholds were low, with no significant difference between active fixation bipolar leads and quadripolar leads. Active fixation leads did not promote a more proximal location of the stimulating electrode or a higher grade of concordance to the target segment than passive fixation leads.
BACKGROUND: Usage of active fixation bipolar left ventricular (LV) leads represents an alternative approach to the more commonly used passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We compared a bipolar LV lead with a side screw for active fixation and passive fixation quadripolar LV leads. METHODS: Sixty-two patients were before CRT implantations randomly allocated to receive a bipolar (n = 31) or quadripolar (n = 31) LV leads. Speckle-tracking radial strain echocardiography was used to define the LV segment with latest mechanical activation as the target LV segment. The electrophysiological measurements and the capability to obtain a proximal position in a coronary vein placed over the target segment were assessed. RESULTS: Upon implantation, the quadripolar lead demonstrated a lower pacing capture threshold than the bipolar lead, but at follow-up, there was no difference. There were no differences in the LV lead implant times or radiation doses. The success rate in reaching the target location was not significantly different between the two LV leads. CONCLUSIONS: The pacing capture thresholds were low, with no significant difference between active fixation bipolar leads and quadripolar leads. Active fixation leads did not promote a more proximal location of the stimulating electrode or a higher grade of concordance to the target segment than passive fixation leads.
Authors: William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kevin P Jackson; Svein Faerestrand; Francois Philippon; Raymond Yee; Melissa H Kong; Axel Kloppe; Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Scott F Lee; Robert C Canby; Erika Pouliot; Mireille M E van Ginneken; George H Crossley Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-03-18
Authors: Jagmeet P Singh; Helmut U Klein; David T Huang; Sven Reek; Malte Kuniss; Aurelio Quesada; Alon Barsheshet; David Cannom; Ilan Goldenberg; Scott McNitt; James P Daubert; Wojciech Zareba; Arthur J Moss Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mohit K Turagam; Muhammad R Afzal; Sandia Iskander; Luigi Di Biase; Andrea Natale; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy Journal: J Atr Fibrillation Date: 2016-08-31
Authors: Fakhar Zaman Khan; Munmohan Singh Virdee; Philip A Read; Peter J Pugh; Denis O'Halloran; Michael Fahey; Maros Elsik; David Begley; Simon Patrick Fynn; David Paul Dutka Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: H M Kristiansen; G Vollan; T Hovstad; H Keilegavlen; S Faerestrand Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 6.875
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: George H Crossley; Mauro Biffi; Ben Johnson; Albert Lin; Daniel Gras; Azlan Hussin; Allen Cuffio; Jack L Collier; Mikhael El-Chami; Shelby Li; Keith Holloman; Derek V Exner Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jonathan M Behar; Julian Bostock; Adrian Po Zhu Li; Hui Men Selina Chin; Stephen Jubb; Edward Lent; James Gamble; Paul W X Foley; Tim R Betts; Christopher Aldo Rinaldi; Neil Herring Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-03-05