Performance and clinical comparison between left ventricular quadripolar and bipolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Observational research.

AIM: To evaluate Attain Performa (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) quadripolar lead performance in clinical practice and, secondarily, to compare its long term clinical outcomes vs bipolar leads for left ventricular (LV) pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical, procedural and follow-up data of 215 patients implanted with a quadripolar lead. One hundred and twenty one patients implanted with bipolar lead were selected to compare long-term clinical outcomes. The quadripolar lead was implanted in the target vein in 196 patients (91%) without acute dislodgements. In 50% of patients the chosen final pacing configuration at implant would not have been available with bipolar leads. A dedicated quadripolar pacing vector was chosen more frequently when the LV tip location was apical than otherwise (65.6% vs 42.7%, p=0.003). After a median follow-up of 14 months, the LV pacing threshold was less than 2.5V at 0.4ms in 98 patients (90%) with a safety margin between phrenic nerve and LV pacing threshold >3V in 97 patients (89%). We observed a slight trend toward a lower risk of heart failure worsening and a lower incidence of ventricular arrhythmias and pulmonary congestion in patients implanted with quadripolar leads compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: Quadripolar leads improve the management of phrenic nerve stimulation at no trade-off with pacing threshold and lead stability. Quadripolar leads seems to be associated with a lower incidence of VT/VF and pulmonary congestion, when compared with bipolar leads, but further investigations are necessary to confirm that this positive effect is associated with better LV reverse remodeling.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: a comparison among left ventricular bipolar, quadripolar and active fixation leads.

We evaluated the performance of 3 different left ventricular leads (LV) for resynchronization therapy: bipolar (BL), quadripolar (QL) and active fixation leads (AFL). We enrolled 290 consecutive CRTD candidates implanted with BL (n = 136) or QL (n = 97) or AFL (n = 57). Over a minimum 10 months follow-up, we assessed: (a) composite technical endpoint (TE) (phrenic nerve stimulation at 8 V@0.4 ms, safety margin between myocardial and phrenic threshold <2V, LV dislodgement and failure to achieve the target pacing site), (b) composite clinical endpoint (CE) (death, hospitalization for heart failure, heart transplantation, lead extraction for infection), (c) reverse remodeling (RR) (reduction of end systolic volume >15%). Baseline characteristics of the 3 groups were similar. At follow-up the incidence of TE was 36.3%, 14.3% and 19.9% in BL, AFL and QL, respectively (p < 0.01). Moreover, the incidence of RR was 56%, 64% and 68% in BL, AFL and QL respectively (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in CE (p = 0.380). On a multivariable analysis, "non-BL leads" was the single predictor of an improved clinical outcome. QL and AFL are superior to conventional BL by enhancing pacing of the target site: AFL through prevention of lead dislodgement while QL through improved management of phrenic nerve stimulation.

AF burden is important - fact or fiction?

Asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and in view of its prognostic impact (the same as of clinically overt AF) knowledge of the overall AF burden (defined as the amount of time spent in AF) appears to be important, both for scientific and clinical reasons. Data collected on more than 12,000 patients indicate that cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) are validated tools for measuring AF burden and that AF burden is associated with an increased risk of stroke. A maximum daily AF burden of ≥ 1 h carries important negative prognostic implications and may be a clinically relevant parameter for improving risk stratification for stroke. Decision-making should primarily consider the context in which asymptomatic, subclinical arrhythmias are detected (i.e. primary or secondary prevention of stroke and systemic embolism) and the risk profile of every individual patient with regard to thromboembolic and haemorrhagic risk, as well as patient preferences and values. Continuous monitoring using CIEDs with extensive data storage capabilities allow in-depth study of the temporal relationship between AF and ischaemic stroke. The relationships between AF and stroke are complex. AF is certainly a risk factor for cardioembolic stroke, with a cause-effect relationship between the arrhythmia and a thromboembolic event, the latter being related to atrial thrombi. However, AF can also be a simple 'marker of risk', with a non-causal association between the arrhythmia and stroke, the latter being possibly related to atheroemboli from the aorta, the carotid arteries or from other sources.