Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads

Landmark Evolutions in Time and Indication for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results from a Multicenter Retrospective Registry

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has evolved into an established therapy for patients with chronic heart failure and a wide QRS complex. Data on long-term outcomes over time are scarce and the criteria for implantation remain a subject of investigation. Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective registry includes 2275 patients who received CRT between 30 November 2000 and 31 December 2019, with a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.7 years. Four time periods were defined, based on landmark trials and guidelines. The combined endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Results: The composite endpoint occurred in 656 patients (29.2%). The mean annual implantation rate tripled from 31.5 ± 17.4/year in the first period to 107.4 ± 62.4/year in the last period. In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not statistically different between time periods. When compared to sinus rhythm with left bundle branch block (LBBB), a non-LBBB conduction pattern (sinus rhythm: HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12-2.03; atrial fibrillation: HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.30-3.33) and a QRS duration below 130 ms (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29-2.09) were associated with a higher hazard ratio. Conclusions: Despite innovations, an adjusted regression analysis revealed stable overall survival over time, which can at least partially be explained by a shift in patient characteristics.

Bipolar versus quadripolar left ventricular leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy: evidence to date

INTRODUCTION

In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, transvenous left ventricular (LV) leads are more prone to instability, high pacing thresholds, and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) that may necessitate lead revision, replacement in a suboptimal position, or deactivation of the lead. To overcome some of these challenges, quadripolar (QP) LV leads have been developed and accounted for over 90% of implanted LV leads 5 years after they were introduced.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the current evidence of implanting QP leads in CRT as compared with traditional bipolar (BP) leads including details about feasibility, safety and lead performance, clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

EXPERT OPINION

Based on the current literature, implantation with a QP lead decreases revision rates but does not affect any clinical outcomes including mortality, hospitalization, symptoms, or echocardiographic parameters. Feasibility and stability do not differ between QP and BP leads. A QP lead should be preferred as first choice over a BP lead due to lower rates of PNS and lower pacing thresholds leading to less frequent lead revisions and battery replacements. In addition, this strategy may be cost saving despite a higher price of QP leads.

Long-term single-centre large volume experience with transseptal endocardial left ventricular lead implantation

Aims

The aim of our study was to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of transseptal endocardial left ventricular lead implantation (TELVLI).

Methods and results

Transseptal endocardial left ventricular lead implantation was performed in 54 patients (44 men, median age 69, New York Heart Association III–IV stage) between 2007 and 2017 in a single centre. In 36 cases, the transseptal puncture (TP) was performed via the femoral vein, and in 18 cases, the TP and also the left ventricular (LV) lead placement were performed via the subclavian vein. An electrophysiological deflectable catheter was used to reach the LV wall through the dilated TP hole. The LV lead implantation was successful in all patients. A total of 54 patients were followed up for a median of 29 months [interquartile range (IQR) 8–40 months], the maximum follow-up time was 94 months. Significant improvement in the LV ejection fraction was observed at the 3-month visit, from the median of 27% (IQR 25–34%) to 33% (IQR 32–44%), P < 0.05. Early lead dislocation was observed in three cases (5%), reposition was performed using the original puncture site in all. The patients were maintained on anticoagulation therapy with a target international normalized ratio between 2.5 and 3.5. Four thromboembolic events were noticed during follow-up. A total of 27 patients died, with a median survival of 15 months (IQR 6–40).

Conclusion

The TELVLI is an effective approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) however it is associated with a substantial thromboembolic risk (7%).

UK multicenter retrospective comparison of novel active versus conventional passive fixation coronary sinus leads

BACKGROUND

A novel active fixation coronary sinus (CS) lead, Attain Stability (AS), has been released aiming to improve targeted lead positioning. Rather than being wedged into the distal vessel, it relies on a side helix for fixation. We aimed to compare implant procedure parameters and electromechanical stability of the AS lead with passive CS leads.

METHODS

A retrospective study involving six major UK cardiac centers. Patients who received active fixation leads were compared with passive fixation lead recipients in a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was total lead displacements (combined macrodisplacement/microdisplacement, defined as displacements requiring repositioning procedures, an increase in threshold ≥0.5 V or pulse width ≥0.5 ms, or a change in pacing polarity).

RESULTS

A total of 761 patients were included (253 AS leads and 508 passive fixation leads), of which 736 had follow-up data. The primary endpoint rate was 31% (75/241) in the active and 43% (214/495) in the passive group (p = .002). Six patients (2.5%) in the active group and 14 patients (2.8%) in the passive group required CS lead repositioning procedures (p = 0.981). On multivariable analysis, active leads were associated with a reduction in lead displacements, odds ratio 0.66 (95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.95), p = .024. There were differences in favor of passive leads in procedure duration, 120 (96-149) versus 127 (105-155) min (p = .008), and fluoroscopy time, 17 (11-26) versus 18.5 (13-27) min (p = .0022). The median follow-up duration was similar (active vs. passive): 31 (17-47) versus 34 (16-71) weeks, (p = .052).

CONCLUSION

AS CS leads had improved electromechanical stability compared with passive fixation leads, with only minimal increases in implant procedure and fluoroscopy times.

Clinical outcomes after implantation of quadripolar compared to bipolar left ventricular leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Some retrospective and prospective studies in heart failure patients with indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) suggest better clinical outcomes for quadripolar (QP) left ventricular (LV) leads over bipolar (BP) leads. Although, lead failure remains an important safety concern, when using these more complex, novel electrodes. To evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes for QP vs. BP LV leads in patients receiving CRT.

Methods and results

We performed a comprehensive literature search through 2018 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases to identify studies comparing patients with QP and BP LV CRT leads. A total of 12 studies were selected for analysis comprising 31 403 patients (QP lead: 22 429 patients; BP lead: 8974 patients). Eight studies examined the effects of CRT on survival. In these studies, use of QP electrodes was associated with significantly better survival compared to patients with BP LV leads (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50–0.76; P < 0.01). Clinical improval measured in New York Heart Association functional class (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34–1.01; P = 0.05) and hospitalization rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55–0.83; P < 0.01) were also improved in patients receiving QP leads. Lead malfunctions defined as LV lead failure resulting in lead deactivation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34–0.98; P = 0.04) or LV lead dislodgement requiring LV lead replacement/repositioning (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31–0.75; P < 0.01) were more often encountered among patients with BP leads compared to patients with QP leads.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis suggests distinct benefits of QP over BP electrodes in patients undergoing CRT.

Benefits of Multisite/Multipoint Pacing to Improve Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Response

This article provides a general overview of the underlying mechanisms that support pacing from more discrete points and/or a wider vector (multisite and multipoint pacing) to improve left ventricular resynchronization. We performed a critical overview of the current literature and to identify some remaining knowledge gaps to spur further research. It was not our goal to provide a systematic review with a comprehensive bibliography, but rather to focus on selected publications that, in our opinion, have either expertly reviewed a specific aspect of cardiac resynchronization therapy or have been landmark studies in the field.

Multi-site multi-polar left ventricular pacing through persistent left superior vena cava in tricuspid valve disease

Multi-site multi-polar left ventricular pacing through the coronary sinus (CS) may be preferred over endocardial right ventricular or surgical epicardial pacing in the presence of tricuspid valve disease. However, the required lead placement can be difficult through a persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC), as the CS tends to be hugely dilated and side branches tend to have sharp angulations (>90°) when approached from the PLSVC. Pre-shaped angiography catheters and techniques used for finding venous grafts from the ascending aorta post coronary bypass surgery may help with lead placement in such a situation.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Using Quadripolar Versus Non-Quadripolar Left Ventricular Leads Programmed to Biventricular Pacing With Single-Site Left Ventricular Pacing: Impact on Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization

Background

In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), quadripolar (QUAD) left ventricular (LV) leads are less prone to postoperative complications than non‐QUAD leads. Some studies have suggested better clinical outcomes.

Methods and Results

Clinical events were assessed in 847 patients after CRT‐pacing or CRT‐defibrillation using either QUAD (n=287) or non‐QUAD (n=560), programmed to single‐site site LV pacing. Over a follow‐up period of 3.2 years (median [interquartile range, 1.90–5.0]), QUAD was associated with a lower total mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.52), cardiac mortality (aHR: 0.36, 95% CI, 0.20–0.65), and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (aHR: 0.62, 95% CI, 0.39–0.99), after adjustment for age, sex, New York Heart Association class, HF etiology, device type (CRT‐pacing or CRT‐defibrillation), comorbidities, atrial rhythm, medication, left ventricular ejection fraction, and creatinine. Death from pump failure was lower with QUAD (aHR: 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18–0.62), but no group differences emerged with respect to sudden cardiac death. There were no differences in implant‐related complications. Re‐interventions for LV displacement or phrenic nerve stimulation, which were lower with QUAD, predicted total mortality (aHR: 1.68, 95% CI, 1.11–2.54), cardiac mortality (aHR: 2.61, 95% CI, 1.66–4.11) and HF hospitalization (aHR: 2.09, 95% CI, 1.22–3.58).

Conclusions

CRT using QUAD, programmed to biventricular pacing with single‐site LV pacing, is associated with a lower total mortality, cardiac mortality, and HF hospitalization. These trends were observed for both CRT‐defibrillation and CRT‐pacing, after adjustment for HF cause and other confounders. Re‐intervention for LV lead displacement or phrenic nerve stimulation was associated with worse outcomes.

Electrophysiology Catheter-Facilitated coronary sinus cannulation and implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy systems

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation is hampered by difficult placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead. We have routinely used a steerable electrophysiology catheter to guide coronary sinus (CS) cannulation and facilitate LV lead positioning. The aim of this prospective study is to present our results with this approach in 138 consecutive patients receiving a CRT device over 10 years.

METHODS

The study included 120 men and 18 women, aged 64.8±11.4 years, with coronary disease (n=63), cardiomyopathy (n=72), or other disease (n=3), and mean ejection fraction of 24.5±4.5%. Devices were implanted for refractory heart failure and dyssynchrony, all but 2 in the presence of left bundle branch block. Implanted devices included biventricular pacemakers (CRT-P) (n=33) and cardioverter defibrillators (CRT-D) (n=105).

RESULTS

Using the electrophysiology catheter, the CS could be engaged in 134 (97.1%) patients. In 4 patients failing CS cannulation, a dual-chamber device was implanted in 2, and bifocal right ventricular pacing was effected in 2. Bifocal (n=2) or conventional (n=1) systems were implanted in another 3 patients, in whom the LV lead got dislodged (n=2) or removed because of local dissection (n=1). Thus, finally, a CRT system was successfully established in 131 (94.9%) patients. There were 3 patients with CS dissection, of whom 1 was complicated by cardiac tamponade managed with pericardiocentesis. There were no perioperative deaths. During follow-up (31.0±21.2 months), clinical improvement was reported by 108 (82.4%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of an electrophysiology catheter greatly facilitated CS cannulation and successful LV lead placement in ∼95% of patients undergoing CRT system implantation.