Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Delivered Via a Multipolar Left Ventricular Lead is Associated with Reduced Mortality and Elimination of Phrenic Nerve Stimulation: Long-Term Follow-Up from a Multicenter Registry

Is interventional technique better than the traditional over-the-wire method for left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Background

Interventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (I-CRT) for left ventricular lead (LVL) placement works as a supplement to traditional (over-the-wire) cardiac resynchronization therapy (T-CRT). It has been argued that I-CRT is a time-consuming and complicated procedure.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in procedure-related, perioperative, postoperative, and clinical endpoints between I-CRT and T-CRT.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included all consecutive patients receiving a CRT-pacemaker/defibrillator between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2018. Patients underwent T-CRT from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2015, and I-CRT from January 1, 2016, to August 31, 2018. We obtained data from patient record files, fluoroscopic images, and the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank-sum/linear regression for continuous variables and the Pearson χ2/Fisher exact for categorical variables.

Results

Optimal LVL placement was achieved in 82.7% of the I-CRT group and 76.8% of the T-CRT group (P = .015). In the I-CRT group, 99.0% of LVLs were quadripolar vs 55.3% in the T-CRT group (P <.001). Two or more leads were used during the procedure in 0.7% and 10.5% of all cases in the I-CRT and T-CRT groups, respectively (P <.001). Total implantation time was 81.0 minutes in the I-CRT group and 83.0 minutes in the T-CRT group (P = .41). Time with catheters in the coronary sinus was 45.0 minutes for the I-CRT group vs 37.0 minutes in the T-CRT group, respectively (P <.001).

Conclusion

I-CRT did not prolong total implantation time despite longer time with catheters in the coronary sinus. I-CRT allowed more optimal LVL placement, wider use of quadripolar leads, and use of fewer leads during the procedure.

Efficacy and safety of novel left ventricular pacing leads: 1-year analysis of the NAVIGATOR trial

OBJECTIVES

Assess safety and performance of novel quadripolar preshaped left ventricular (LV) leads: NAVIGO 4LV 2D ('S shaped') and NAVIGO 4LV ARC ('U shaped').

METHODS

Patients indicated for cardiac resynchronisation therapy were enrolled in a multicentre, prospective, controlled study (NAVIGATOR, NCT03279484). Patients were implanted with either a NAVIGO 4LV 2D or ARC lead, and assessed at 10 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months post-implant. Co-primary safety and performance endpoints were assessed at 10 weeks. Safety endpoint was the patients' rate free from lead-related complications. Performance endpoint was the rate of patients with successful lead performance, defined as LV pacing threshold ≤2.5 V at 0.5 ms on at least one pacing vector, and the absence of phrenic nerve stimulation at the final programmed configuration. Lead-related complications and electrical parameters were monitored throughout study.

RESULTS

A NAVIGO 4LV lead was successfully implanted in 211 out of 217 patients (97.2%). The safety endpoint was met, with 100% and 96.1% of patients free from complications for NAVIGO 4LV 2D and ARC, respectively. The performance endpoint was met with 98.1% and 98.9% of patients with a successful lead performance for NAVIGO 4LV 2D and ARC, respectively. Over 12 months, the global complication-free rate for both leads was 97.1% (95% CI: 93.71% to 98.70%), with a mean pacing capture threshold of 1.23 V±0.73 V and a mean impedance of 951 Ω±300.1 Ω.

CONCLUSION

A high implantation success rate and low complication rate was reported for the novel NAVIGO 4LV 2D and ARC leads, along with successful performance up to 12 months.

Cardiac resynchronization using fusion pacing during exercise

INTRODUCTION

Fusion pacing requires correct timing of left ventricular pacing to right ventricular activation, although it is unclear whether this is maintained when atrioventricular (AV) conduction changes during exercise. We used cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to compare cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using fusion pacing or fixed AV delays (AVD).

METHODS

Patients 6 months post-CRT implant with PR intervals < 250 ms performed two CPET tests, using either the SyncAV™ algorithm or fixed AVD of 120 ms in a double-blinded, randomized, crossover study. All other programming was optimized to produce the narrowest QRS duration (QRSd) possible.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (11 male, age 71 [65-77] years) were recruited. Fixed AVD and fusion programming resulted in similar narrowing of QRSd from intrinsic rhythm at rest (p = .85). Overall, there was no difference in peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2 PEAK , p = .19), oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (VT1, p = .42), or in the time to reach either V̇O2 PEAK (p = .81) or VT1 (p = .39). The BORG rating of perceived exertion was similar between groups. CPET performance was also analyzed comparing whichever programming gave the narrowest QRSd at rest (119 [96-136] vs. 134 [119-142] ms, p < .01). QRSd during exercise (p = .03), peak O2 pulse (mL/beat, a surrogate of stroke volume, p = .03), and cardiac efficiency (watts/mL/kg/min, p = .04) were significantly improved.

CONCLUSION

Fusion pacing is maintained during exercise without impairing exercise capacity compared with fixed AVD. However, using whichever algorithm gives the narrowest QRSd at rest is associated with a narrower QRSd during exercise, higher peak stroke volume, and improved cardiac efficiency.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Case report: An unusual case of phrenic nerve stimulation in a patient with single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Background

Phrenic nerve stimulation is a well-recognized complication related to cardiac implantable electronic devices, in particular with left ventricular coronary sinus pacing leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Case presentation

We report an unusual case of symptomatic phrenic nerve stimulation due to inadvertent placement of a right ventricular defibrillation lead in coronary sinus posterior branch in a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with a recently implanted single-chamber cardioverter defibrillator.

Discussion

Phrenic nerve stimulation is a relatively common complication of left ventricular pacing. Inadvertent placement of a right ventricular lead in a coronary sinus branch is a rare but possible cause of phrenic nerve stimulation. Careful evaluation of intraprocedural fluoroscopic and electrocardiographic appearance of pacing and defibrillation leads during implantation may prevent inadvertent placement of a right ventricular lead in the coronary sinus.

What Have We Learned in the Last 20 Years About CRT Non-Responders?

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become well established in the treatment of heart failure, the management of patients who do not respond after CRT remains a key challenge. This review will summarize what we have learned about non-responders over the last 20 years and discuss methods for optimizing response, including the introduction of novel therapies.

Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Simultaneous and Sequential Multi-Point Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With an Expected Higher Rate of Sub-response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results of Multicenter SYNSEQ Study

The aim of the SYNSEQ (Left Ventricular Synchronous vs. Sequential MultiSpot Pacing for CRT) study was to evaluate the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) of simultaneous (3P-MPP _syn) or sequential (3P-MPP _seq) multi-3-point-left-ventricular (LV) pacing vs. single point pacing (SPP) in a group of patients at risk of a suboptimal response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Twenty five patients with myocardial scar or QRS ≤ 150 or the absence of LBBB (age: 66 ± 12 years, QRS: 159 ± 12 ms, NYHA class II/III, LVEF ≤ 35%) underwent acute hemodynamic assessment by LV + dP/dt_max with a variety of LV pacing configurations at an optimized AV delay. The change in LV + dP/dt _max (%ΔLV + dP/dt _max) with 3P-MPP _syn (15.6%, 95% CI: 8.8%-22.5%) was neither statistically significantly different to 3P-MPP _seq (11.8%, 95% CI: 7.6-16.0%) nor to SPP _basal (11.5%, 95% CI:7.1-15.9%) or SPP _mid (12.2%, 95% CI:7.9-16.5%), but higher than SPP _apical (10.6%, 95% CI:5.3-15.9%, p = 0.03). AHR (defined as a %ΔLV + dP/dt _max ≥ 10%) varied between pacing configurations: 36% (9/25) for SPP _apical, 44% (11/25) for SPP _basal, 54% (13/24) for SPP _mid, 56% (14/25) for 3P-MPP _syn and 48% (11/23) for 3P-MPP _seq.Fifteen patients (15/25, 60%) had an AHR in at least one pacing configuration. AHR was observed in 10/13 (77%) patients with a LBBB but only in 5/12 (42%) patients with a non-LBBB (p = 0.11). To conclude, simultaneous or sequential multipoint pacing compared to single point pacing did not improve the acute hemodynamic effect in a suboptimal CRT response population.

The usefulness of balloon occlusive left ventricular lead delivery in combination with the quadripolar active fixation lead for a patient with complex coronary venous morphology

Complex coronary vein morphology impedes the insertion of the left ventricular (LV) lead and reduces the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). A 77-year-old woman underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implantation via the left subclavian approach for a complete atrioventricular block 17 years previously. She was hospitalized due to decompensated heart failure, and her cardiac rhythm completely depended on ventricular pacing at that time. Transthoracic echocardiography showed thinning of the ventricular septum in the basal region and pacing-induced dyssynchrony. She was clinically diagnosed with cardiac sarcoidosis with severe LV systolic dysfunction. She was referred for an upgrade to CRT. Given that prior contrast venography showed occlusion of the left subclavian vein, an additional LV lead was inserted through the right subclavian vein. Coronary venography showed a lateral vein that branched from the great cardiac vein with an acute angle and had multiple tortuosities in the peripheral branches. Since the LV lead placement was unsuccessful with the conventional method, we attempted the lead placement using the balloon occlusion technique (BOT). Lead delivery into the anatomical optimal lateral vein was successful by using BOT, and LV pacing from the most delayed basal region was achieved in combination with the active fixation LV lead.

<Learning objective: The balloon occlusion technique in cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation has been introduced to achieve left ventricular (LV) lead insertion into the coronary vein with a complex morphology. A quadripolar active fixation LV lead, which has been recently developed, has a low dislodgement rate and enables lead placement to the desired location. Application of conventional techniques in combination with the active fixation LV lead is expected to improve the success rate of optimal LV pacing in patients with complex coronary vein morphology.>

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

BACKGROUND

The rate of left ventricular (LV) lead displacement after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains high despite improvements in lead technology. In 2017, a novel quadripolar lead with active fixation technology became available in the UK.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study analyzing device complications in 476 consecutive patients undergoing successful first-time implantation of a CRT device at a tertiary center from 2017 to 2020.

RESULTS

Both active (n = 135) and passive fixation (n = 341) quadripolar leads had similar success rates for implantation (99.3% vs. 98.8%, p = 1.00), although the pacing threshold (0.89 [0.60-1.25] vs. 1.00 [0.70-1.60] V, p = .01) and lead impedance (632 [552-794] vs. 730 [636-862] Ohms, p < .0001) were significantly lower for the active fixation lead. Patients receiving an active fixation lead had a reduced incidence of lead displacement at 6 months (0.74% vs. 4.69%, p = .036). There was no significant difference in the rate of right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) lead displacement between the two groups (RA: 1.48% vs. 1.17%, p = .68; RV: 2.22% vs. 1.76%, p = .72). Reprogramming the LV lead after displacement was unsuccessful in most cases (successful reprogramming: Active fix = 0/1, Passive fix = 1/16) therefore nearly all patients required a repeat procedure. As a result, the rate of intervention within 6 months for lead displacement was significantly lower when patients were implanted with the active fixation lead (0.74% vs. 4.40%, p = .049).

CONCLUSION

The novel active fixation lead in our study has a lower incidence of lead displacement and re-intervention compared to conventional quadripolar leads for CRT.

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.

Endocardial left ventricular pacing

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure; however, 30–50% of patients fail to improve after implant. Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing is an alternative therapy for patients who do not respond to conventional CRT or in whom placement of a lead via the coronary sinus is not possible. It enables pacing at a wide variety of sites, without restrictions due to coronary sinus anatomy, and there is evidence of superior electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic response compared with conventional epicardial CRT. In this article, we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of endocardial LV pacing compared with conventional CRT, review the evidence for the delivery of endocardial LV pacing using both lead-based and leadless systems, and explore possible future directions of this novel technology.

Multipoint left ventricular pacing as an addition to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a bridge to the holy grail?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) constitutes a cornerstone to the treatment of advanced dyssynchronous heart failure (DyssHF); moreover it represents one of the few instances that a revolutionary approach was pursued, yielding previously unfathomable benefits to patients out of realistic therapeutic options. However, as is rather extensively established, nonresponse, or even negative response, to CRT continue to plague its course, precluding favourable effects in up to 40% of recipients, for a multitude of reasons. Given the scope of the issue of nonresponse, attempts to negate it by means of altering CRT delivery mode, and, more specifically, by introducing multipoint left ventricular pacing (MPP) have been focused on. Possible reasons for divergent trial results will be presented, as well as potential criteria for predicting whether MPP activation may reap additional benefits as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BVP). Finally, an alternative framework for approaching CRT in general will be put forward, including advancements which in the (near) future may once more revolutionise heart failure treatment.

Multipoint pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Multipoint pacing (MPP) has been proposed as an effective way to improve cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) response. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of CRT delivered via MPP compared to conventional CRT.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from inception to January 2021 for studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, comparing MPP to conventional CRT with a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Randomised and nonrandomised studies were assessed for relevant efficacy data including echocardiographic (left ventricular end systolic volume [LVESV] and ejection fraction) or functional changes (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class/Clinical Composite Score). Subgroup analyses were performed by study design and programming type.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies with a total of 1390 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, MPP demonstrated greater echocardiographic improvement than conventional CRT in nonrandomised studies (odds ratio [OR]: 5.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.05-9.33], p < .001), however, was not significant in randomised studies (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: [0.91-3.79], p = .086). There was no significant difference in LVESV reduction >15% (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: [0.69-5.55], p = .20) or improvement by ≥1 NYHA class (OR: 2.49, 95% CI: [0.74-8.42], p = .141) when comparing MPP to conventional CRT. In a sub analysis, MPP programmed by widest anatomical separation (MPP-AS) signalled greater efficacy, however, only 120 patients were included in this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Overall MPP was more efficacious in nonrandomised studies, and not superior when assessed in randomised studies. There was considerable heterogeneity in study design making overall interpretation of results challenging. Widespread MPP programming in all CRT patients is currently not justified. Further large, randomised studies with patient-specific programming may clarify its effectiveness.

Left ventricle pacing challenges in cardiac resynchronization therapy systems

Left ventricle (LV) pacing can be considered peculiar due to its different lead/tissue interface (epicardial pacing) and the small vein wedging lead locations with less reliable lead stability. The current technologies available for LV capture automatic confirmation adopt the evoked response (ER), as well as "LV pace to right ventricular (RV) sense" algorithms. The occurrence of anodal RV capture is today completely solved by the use of bipolar LV leads, while intriguing data are recently published regarding the unintentional LV anodal capture beside the cathodal one, which may enlarge the front wave of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery. The LV threshold behavior over time leading to ineffective CRT issues (subthreshold stimulation or concealed loss of capture), the extracardiac capture with phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS), the flexible electronic cathode reprogramming and the inadequate CRT delivery related to inadequate AV and VV pace timing (and its management by LV "dromotropic pace-conditioning") are discussed. Moreover, recently, His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) have shown growing interest to prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy as well as for direct intentional CRT. The purpose of the present review is to explore these new challenges regarding LV pacing starting from old concepts.

Phrenic nerve stimulation, a rare complication of pacemaker: A case report

RATIONALE

The phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) is a rare complication after pacemaker setting. We report a case report that describes this complication and how it can be resolved.

PATIENT CONCERNS

An 88-year-old man presented himself to the emergency geriatric unit with intermittent painless abdominal contraction due to phrenic nerve stimulation. He has a history of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker due to persistent left bundle branch block.

DIAGNOSES

All the usual causes for abdominal spasms were eliminated and the possibility of a link with the pacemaker was considered. The phrenic nerve stimulation is a rare complication of a pacemaker implantation. It can be clinically nonrelevant but challenging to diagnose for those not familiar with cardiac devices technology.

INTERVENTIONS

Initial setting was an axis of stimulation between distal left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular. It was changed to LV and D1-M2.

OUTCOMES

This noninvasive procedure managed to eradicate the involuntary abdominal spasms.

LESSONS

PNS could be challenging to diagnose for those not familiar with cardiac devices technology but easy to manage with noninvasive methods.

Six months clinical outcome comparison between quadripolar and bipolar left ventricular leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: A prospective, non-randomized, single-centre observational study

Background and objectives

Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) offer multi-vector pacing with different pacing configurations and hence enabling LV pacing at most suitable site with better lead stability. We aim to compare the outcomes between quadripolar and bipolar LV lead in patients receiving CRT.

Methods

In this prospective, non-randomized, single-center observational study, we enrolled 93 patients receiving CRT with bipolar (BiP) (n = 31) and quadripolar (Quad) (n = 62) LV lead between August 2016 to August 2019. Patients were followed for six months, and outcomes were compared with respect to CRT response (defined as ≥5% absolute increase in left ventricle ejection fraction), electrocardiographic, echocardiographic parameters, NYHA functional class improvement, and incidence of LV lead-related complication.

Results

At the end of six months follow up, CRT with quadripolar lead was associated with better response rate as compared to bipolar pacing (85.48% vs 64.51%; p = 0.03), lesser heart failure (HF) hospitalization events (1.5 vs 2; p = 0.04) and better improvement in HF symptoms (patients with ≥1 NYHA improvement 87.09% vs 67.74%; p = 0.04). There were fewer deaths per 100 patient-year (6.45 vs 9.37; p = 0.04) and more narrowing of QRS duration (Δ12.56 ± 3.11 ms vs Δ7.29 ± 1.87 ms; p = 0.04) with quadripolar lead use. Lead related complications were significantly more with the use of bipolar lead (74.19% vs 41.94%; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Our prospective, non-randomized, single-center observational study reveals that patients receiving CRT with quadripolar leads have a better response to therapy, lesser heart failure hospitalizations, lower all-cause mortality, and fewer lead-related complications, proving its superiority over the bipolar lead.

Performance of an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead vs passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy, a randomized trial

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.

Clinical outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients randomized to an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead versus a passive quadripolar lead

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients receiving a bipolar left ventricular (LV) lead with a side helix for active fixation to the outcome in patients receiving a quadripolar passive fixation LV lead.Design: Sixty-two patients (mean age 72 ± 11 years) were blindly and randomly assigned to the active fixation bipolar lead group (n = 31) or to the quadripolar lead group (n= 31). The LV leads were targeted to the basal LV segment in a vein concordant to the LV segment with the latest mechanical contraction chosen on the basis of preoperative radial strain (RS) echocardiography.Results: At the 6-month follow-up (FU), the reduction in LV end-systolic volume and LV reverse remodelling responder rate, defined as LV end-systolic volume reduction >15%, was 77% in the active fixation group and 83% in the quadripolar group, which was not significantly different. At the 12-month FU, the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) did not differ between the groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in changes in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class or Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score. The occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) was 19% in the active fixation group versus 10% in the quadripolar group (p=.30), and all cases were resolved by reprogramming the device. All patients were alive at the 12-month FU. There was no device infection.Conclusions: There were no significant differences between the active fixation group of patients and the quadripolar group of patients concerning improvement in echocardiographic parameters or clinical symptoms.ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04632472.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging scanning in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators incorporating quadripolar left ventricular leads

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning of magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional cardiac implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can be performed safely following specific protocols. MRI safety with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds) incorporating quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads is less clear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ICDs and CRT-D systems with quadripolar LV leads after an MRI scan.

METHODS

The ENABLE MRI Study included 230 subjects implanted with a Boston Scientific ImageReady ICD (n = 39) or CRT-D (n = 191) incorporating quadripolar LV leads undergoing nondiagnostic 1.5-T MRI scans (lumbar and thoracic spine imaging) a minimum of 6 weeks postimplant. Pacing capture thresholds (PCTs), sensing amplitudes (SAs), and impedances were measured before and 1 month post-MRI using the same programmed LV pacing vectors. The ability to sense/treat ventricular fibrillation (VF) was assessed in a subset of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients completed a protocol-required MRI scan (MRI Protection Mode turned on) with no scan-related complications. All right ventricular (RV) and left LV PCT and SA effectiveness endpoints were met: RV PCT 99% (145/146 patients), LV PCT 100% (120/120), RV SA 99% (145/146), and LV SA 98% (116/118). In no instances did MRI result in a change in pacing vector or lead revision. All episodes of VF were appropriately sensed and treated.

CONCLUSION

This first evaluation of predominantly CRT-D systems with quadripolar LV leads undergoing 1.5-T MRI confirmed that scanning was safe with no significant changes in RV/LV PCT, SA, programmed vectors, and VF treatment, thus suggesting that MRI in patients having a device with quadripolar leads can be performed without negative impact on CRT delivery.

Caudocranial transseptal approach for placement of endocardial left ventricular leads

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with improvement in the quality of life, hospitalization rates, and mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and evidence of the right ventricle-left ventricle (RV-LV) desynchrony. Implant failure rates and patient outcomes have improved with the advent of quadripolar leads, yet alternatives to traditional coronary sinus (CS) LV lead placement is sought for in a subset of advanced heart failure patients with difficult CS anatomy, phrenic nerve stimulation or in nonresponders. Endocardial left ventricular pacing (EnLVP) in chronically anticoagulated patients has been reported as an alternative using different approaches, techniques, and tools with acceptable short and long term adverse events. We present a case of successful EnLVP achieved for CRT using standard techniques and commonly available tools in a patient on chronic direct oral anticoagulation with recurrent heart failure admissions who failed traditional epicardial LV pacing.

Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected patients with systolic heart failure. Unlike conventional biventricular pacing (BIP), the left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) can increase the number of left ventricular pacing sites via a quadripolar lead positioned in the coronary sinus. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the clinical outcome of MPP in comparison with BIP. We systematically searched the databases of EMBASE, Ovid medline, and Cochrane Library through May 2018 for studies comparing the clinical outcome of MPP with BIP in the patients who accepted CRT. Hospitalization for reason of heart failure, left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), CRT response, all-cause morbidity, and cardiovascular death rate was collected for meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 29,606 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with BIP group, MPP decreased heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.50; P < 0.00001), improved LVEF (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, 3.11 to 6.83; P < 0.00001), increased CRT response (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.68 to 7.87; P = 0.001), and decreased all-cause morbidity (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.66; P = 0.0002) and cardiovascular death rate (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < 0.00001). The published literature demonstrates that MPP was more effective than BIP in the heart failure patients who accepted cardiac resynchronization therapy.

A Novel Quadripolar Active Fixation Left-Ventricular Pacing Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Initial United Kingdom Experience

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess immediate and short-term performance of the Medtronic Attain Stability Quadripolar 4798 lead (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland).

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for appropriately selected patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. The most common reason for failure to implant a lead is the lack of a suitable epicardial vein, due either to an absent vessel in the target site, an unacceptably high threshold, lead instability, phrenic nerve stimulation, or a combination of reasons. In August 2017, a novel quadripolar active fixation LV lead (Medtronic) was released. This paper reports the initial clinical experience with lead implantation and specifically immediate and short-term pacing parameters across 3 United Kingdom centers.

METHODS

Consecutive patients eligible for CRT were deemed suitable for this lead. Immediate and short-term lead performance data regarding LV threshold, impedance, and displacement rates were collected at standard pacing checks (1 day, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 9 months post-implantation).

RESULTS

CRT using this lead was attempted in 82 cases and was successful in 81 cases (98.8%). LV thresholds and impedance levels were 1.22 ± 0.75 V and 737 ± 319 Ω at implantation; 1.16 ± 0.71 V and 597 ± 218 Ω at day 1; 1.02 ± 0.48 V and 579 ± 148 Ω at week 6; 0.98 ± 0.49 V and 569 ± 133 Ω at 3 months; and 1.06 ± 0.48 V and 570 ± 140 Ω at 9 months. As of the publication of this paper, no LV lead has been displaced.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT using the Medtronic lead was successful in more than 98% of the patients. Short-to-medium-term data regarding lead performance and stability were excellent, with zero displacements as of the publication of this paper.

Quadripolar versus bipolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: An analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

BACKGROUND

The introduction of quadripolar (QP) cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) leads aimed to improve procedural and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry was analyzed to characterize the use as well as the procedural and clinical outcomes of QP leads in comparison with unipolar and bipolar (BP) leads.

METHODS

We evaluated data on 175,684 procedures reported between September 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data.

RESULTS

Among all CRT device implants, there was a drop in reported lead placement failure from 6.04% to 5.21% (P < .0001 for trend) and a drop in the reported diaphragmatic stimulation rates from 0.07% to 0.01% (P < .007 for trend) between the last quarters of 2010 and 2015. No significant difference in procedural complication rates between QP and BP leads occurred (1.34% and 1.39%, respectively; P = .50). Among patients linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, no statistically significant difference in the combined primary outcome of death, congestive heart failure admission, device malfunction, and reoperation between BP and QP leads was observed (34.15 and 34.19 events per 100 patient-years, respectively; P = .89).

CONCLUSION

Since the introduction of QP leads, there was a reduction in CRT lead placement failure rates and a reduction in diaphragmatic stimulation rates. However, no statistically significant difference in long-term clinical outcomes between BP and QP leads was observed in elderly patients undergoing CRT implantation.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Quadripolar Versus Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Defibrillator Therapy in a Large, Multicenter UK Registry

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of quadripolar versus bipolar cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy systems.

BACKGROUND

Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy reduce phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) and are associated with reduced mortality compared with bipolar leads.

METHODS

A total of 606 patients received implants at 3 UK centers (319 Q, 287 B), between 2009 and 2014; mean follow-up was 879 days. Rehospitalization episodes were costed at National Health Service national tariff rates, and EQ-5D utility values were applied to heart failure admissions, acute coronary syndrome events, and mortality data, which were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-year differences over 5 years.

RESULTS

Groups were matched with regard to age and sex. Patients with quadripolar implants had a lower rate of hospitalization than those with bipolar implants (42.6% vs. 55.4%; p = 0.002). This was primarily driven by fewer hospital readmissions for heart failure (51 [16%] vs. 75 [26.1%], respectively, for quadripolar vs. bipolar implants; p = 0.003) and generator replacements (9 [2.8%] vs. 19 [6.6%], respectively; p = 0.03). Hospitalization for suspected acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, device explantation, and lead revisions were similar. This lower health-care utilization cost translated into a cumulative 5-year cost saving for patients with quadripolar systems where the acquisition cost was <£932 (US $1,398) compared with bipolar systems. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results mirrored the deterministic calculations. For the average additional price of £1,200 (US $1,800) over a bipolar system, the incremental cost-effective ratio was £3,692 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (US $5,538), far below the usual willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 (US $30,000).

CONCLUSIONS

In a UK health-care 5-year time horizon, the additional purchase price of quadripolar cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy systems is largely offset by lower subsequent event costs up to 5 years after implantation, which makes this technology highly cost-effective compared with bipolar systems.

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

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint pacing and quadripolar lead implantation showed improvement in systolic function, reduction in left ventricular volumes, and improved functional capacity in a patient with cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction; this therapy could be a valid option in those cases where a suboptimal CRT response is expected.

Optimization of CRT programming using non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging to assess the acute electrical effects of multipoint pacing

Aim

Quadripolar lead technology and multi-point pacing (MPP) are important clinical adjuncts in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacing aimed at reducing the rate of non-response to therapy. Mixed results have been achieved using MPP and it is critical to identify which patients require this approach and how to configure their MPP stimulation, in order to achieve optimal electrical resynchronization.

Methods & Results

We sought to investigate whether electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi), using the CARDIOINSIGHT ^™ inverse ECG mapping system, could identify alterations in electrical resynchronization during different methods of device optimization. In no patient did a single form of programming optimization provide the best electrical response. The effects of utilizing MPP were idiosyncratic and highly patient specific. ECGi activation maps were clearly able to discern changes in bulk LV activation during differing MPP programming. In two of the five subjects, MPP resulted in more rapid activation of the left ventricle compared to standard CRT; however, in the remaining three patients, the use of MPP did not appear to acutely improve electrical resynchronization. Crucially, this cohort showed evidence of extensive LV scarring which was well visualized using both CMR and ECGi voltage mapping.

Conclusions

Our work suggests a potential role for ECGi in the optimization of non-responders to CRT, as it allows the fusion of activation maps and scar analysis above and beyond interrogation of the 12 lead ECG.

Super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy may predict late phrenic nerve stimulation

Aims

Changes in the anatomical relationship between left phrenic nerve and coronary veins may occur due to the reverse remodelling observed in super-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and might be the underlying mechanism in patients developing late-onset phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) without evidence of lead dislodgement (LD). In this study, we sought to evaluate the role of super-response (SR) to CRT as a potential predictor of late-onset PNS.

Methods and results

Consecutive patients implanted with a left ventricular (LV) lead in a single centre were retrospectively analysed. Phrenic nerve stimulation was classified as 'early' when it occurred within 3 months of implantation and 'late' for occurrences thereafter. 'Late' PNS was considered related to LD (LD-PNS) when LV threshold differed by > 1 V or impedance >250 Ω from baseline values or in case of radiological displacement. Cases not meeting the former criteria were classified as 'non-LD-PNS'. Super-response was defined as a decrease ≥30% of the left ventricluar end-systolic volume at 1-year echocardiography. At 32 ± 7 months follow-up, PNS occurred in 20 of 139 patients. Late non-LD-PNS incidence was significantly higher in the SR group (8/61; 13.1%) when compared with the non-SR (1/78; 1.3%) (P = 0.010). Super-response remained the only predictor of non-LD-PNS at multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 11.62, 95% confidence interval 1.41-95.68, P = 0.023).

Conclusion

Incidence of late non-LD-PNS is higher among SR to CRT, suggesting a potential role of the changes in the anatomical relationship between left phrenic nerve and coronary veins.

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 2.5 V at 0.4 ms in 98 patients (90%) with a safety margin between phrenic nerve and LV pacing threshold >3 V 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.

The impact of multipole pacing on left ventricular function in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy - A real-time three-dimensional echocardiography approach

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is standard of care in heart failure (HF), however this technique is associated with a non-responder rate of 30%. Multipole pacing (MPP) with a quadripolar lead may optimize CRT and responder rate by creating two electrical wave fronts in the left ventricular (LV) myocardium simultaneously in order to reduce mechanical dyssynchrony. The objective of this study was to investigate the acute impact of MPP on LV function by assessing systolic dyssynchrony index (SDI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) via real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3DE).

METHODS

In 41 consecutive patients (87.8% male; mean age 66.0 ± 12.7 years) who received CRT defibrillators with a quadripolar LV lead, RT3DE datasets were acquired the day after implantation under the following pacing configurations: Baseline AAI, conventional biventricular pacing using distal or proximal LV poles and MPP. Datasets were analyzed in paired samples evaluating SDI and LVEF depending on programmed pacing modality.

RESULTS

MPP resulted in statistically significant reduction of SDI compared to baseline (6.3%; IQR 4.4-7.8 and 9.9%; IQR 8.0-12.7; p < 0.001) and to conventional biventricular pacing using distal (7.6%; IQR 6.5-9.1; p < 0.001) or proximal (7.4%; IQR 6.2-8.8; p < 0.001) LV poles respectively. MPP yielded significant increase in LVEF compared to baseline (30.6%; IQR 25.8-37.5 and 27.2%; IQR 21.1-33.6; p < 0.001) and to conventional biventricular pacing configuration with distal (28.1%; IQR 22.1-34.5; p < 0.001) or proximal (28.6%; IQR 23.2-34.9; p < 0.001) LV poles respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Multipole pacing improves mechanical dyssynchrony of the left ventricular myocardium as assessed by SDI and LVEF.

Implant Characteristics of Quadripolar and Bipolar Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Several studies have reported that the left ventricular (LV) lead implant success rate ranges between 88.0% and 92.4%. Coronary venous anatomy differs among patients thus, necessitating multiple types of leads. To date, the implant success rate among Japanese patients utilizing a pre-specified family LV leads (including bipolar and quadripolar) is not well known. The Attain Success Japan Study enrolled patients indicated for a de novo or an upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy implant. Patients were followed for 3 months, and the implant success rates with Medtronic Attain family LV leads as well as the incidence of complications related to the LV lead were evaluated.Three hundred 53 patients were enrolled from 29 sites in Japan; 346 patients had LV lead implant attempts. The LV lead was successfully implanted in 336 patients (97.1%). Bipolar and quadripolar LV lead implants were successful in 97.2% and 99.2% of patients, respectively (P = 0.43). Four complications (1.2%) related to the LV leads were reported; all of which occurred in patients receiving bipolar LV leads. The quadripolar LV leads were more frequently implanted in the apical segment compared with bipolar leads (21.6% versus 3.8%, P < 0.01). This study demonstrated a high implant success rate and a low LV lead-related complication rate, regardless of bipolar, or quadripolar in a Japanese cohort of patients.

Variation in activation time during bipolar vs extended bipolar left ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is typically delivered via quadripolar leads that allow stimulation using either true bipolar pacing, where stimulation occurs between two electrodes (BP) on the quadripolar lead, or extended bipole (EBP) left ventricular (LV) pacing, with the quadripolar electrodes and right ventricular coil acting as the cathode and anode, respectively. True bipolar pacing is associated with reductions in mortality and it has been postulated that these differences are the result of enhanced electrical activation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing a CRT underwent an electrocardiographic imaging study where electrical activation data were recorded while different LV pacing vectors were temporarily programmed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the total electrical activation times or dispersion of electrical activation between biventricular pacing with bipolar or corresponding EBP LV vector configurations (left ventricular total activation time [LVtat] BP 74.70 ± 18.07 vs EBP 72.4 ± 22.64; P = 0.45). When dichotomized according to etiology, no difference was observed in the activation time with either BP or EBP pacing (LVtat BP ischemic cardiomyopathy 72.2 ± 17.4 vs BP dilated cardiomyopathy 79.9 ± 18.9; P = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Bipolar pacing alters the mechanical activation sequence of the LV and is associated with reductions in all-cause mortality. It has been postulated these benefits derive from improvements in electromechanical activation of the LV. Our study would suggest that true bipolar pacing does not necessarily result in more favorable activation of the LV or improved electrical resynchronization and other mechanisms should be explored.

Outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular quadripolar leads

BACKGROUND

Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads provide a more optimal pacing configuration for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) than conventional bipolar leads. The objective of this study is to determine the clinical outcomes of CRT using quadripolar leads.

METHODS

This study included 516 CRT patients who received bipolar LV leads (n = 278) or quadripolar LV leads (n = 238) from January 2013 to June 2016. Data were retrospectively collected from a prospective CRT database and electronic health records. CRT response to CRT was defined as >5% improvement in the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

New York Heart Association Functional Classification and LVEF significantly improved in the quadripolar and bipolar groups after CRT. There was no difference in the all-cause mortality rate. The implant success rate was significantly higher in the quadripolar group (100% vs 97.8%; P = 0.02). Quadripolar lead placement was an independent predictor of CRT response at 12 months (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.98; P = 0.04). The rate of LV lead-related complications requiring invasive lead revision or abandonment was significantly higher in the bipolar group (11.2% vs 4.6%; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Quadripolar leads achieve similar CRT outcomes as bipolar LV leads but with a higher implant success rate and fewer procedure-related complications.

Non-invasive electrophysiological assessment of the optimal configuration of quadripolar lead vectors on ventricular activation times

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is now generally delivered via quadripolar leads. Assessment of the effect of different vector programs from quadripolar leads on ventricular activation can be now done using non-invasive electrocardiographic mapping (ECM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In nineteen patients with quadripolar LV leads, activation maps were constructed. The total ventricular activation time (TVaT) and the time for the bulk of ventricular activation (VaT_10-90) were calculated.

RESULTS

CRT delivered via a quadripolar lead significantly reduced TVaT and VaT_10-90 by a mean of 16 ms and 31 ms, respectively, compared to baseline. There was a marked reduction in ventricular activation between the most and least synchronous vectors: 28% difference in baseline TVaT and 37% difference in VaT_10-90.

CONCLUSION

Changes in the configuration of an LV quadripolar lead significantly affected ventricular activation timings in both ischaemic and non-ischaemic subjects. This suggests that programming of the optimal pacing vector may need to be individually tailored.

Technology Advances to Improve Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: What Clinicians Should Know

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, prolonged QRS duration, and abnormal QRS morphology. The ultimate goals of modern CRT are to improve the proportion of patients responding to CRT and to maximize the response to CRT in patients who do respond. While the rate of CRT nonresponders has moderately but progressively decreased over the last 20 years, mostly in patients with left bundle branch block, in patients without left bundle branch block the response rate is almost unchanged. A number of technological advances have already contributed to achieve some of the objectives of modern CRT. They include novel lead design (the left ventricular quadripolar lead, and multipoint pacing), or the possibility to go beyond conventional delivery of CRT (left ventricular endocardial pacing, His bundle pacing). Furthermore, to improve CRT response, a triad of actions is paramount: reducing the burden of atrial fibrillation, reducing the number of appropriate and inappropriate interventions, and adequately predicting heart failure episodes. As in other fields of cardiology, technology and innovations for CRT delivery have been at the forefront in transforming-improving-patient care; therefore, these innovations are discussed in this review.

Impact of quadripolar LV leads on heart failure hospitalization rates among patients implanted with CRT-D: data from the Israeli ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF); however, a third of patients are non-responders. The development of quadripolar left ventricular (LV) lead was shown, mainly in single manufactures' registry, to improve LV remodeling and overall mortality. However, limited reports exist on the impact of quadripolar LV leads on HF hospitalization rates in real-life cohorts. We evaluated the clinical outcomes associated with quadripolar LV leads in a large nation-wide registry including all patients implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D).

METHODS

Between July 2010 and October 2016, 2913 consecutive patients were implanted with a CRT-D and all were prospectively enrolled in the Israeli ICD Registry. Quadripolar LV leads were implanted in 973 (33.4%) patients during this period, and their clinical outcomes were compared to CRT-D recipients implanted with a bipolar LV lead. Primary endpoint was HF hospitalization rate.

RESULTS

Quadripolar leads were implanted more in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and for primary prevention indication and less in post-infarction patients and for secondary prevention of sudden death. Longer QRS duration was observed with quadripolar leads (147 ± 23 vs 143 ± 25; p < 0.001). Outcome event rate for 100 patient years revealed no difference in HF hospitalization rates between bipolar and quadripolar LV leads. Quadripolar lead implant led to lower cardiac mortality, with no influence on overall mortality. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in study endpoints between bipolar and quadripolar LV leads.

CONCLUSION

In a large real-life registry, implantation of quadripolar LV leads in patients with CRT-D did not influence HF hospitalization rates.

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.