Cargando…

Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads

BACKGROUND: Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads are capable of pacing from four different electrodes which allows for easier and more stable intra-operative lead positioning with optimal pacing parameters. We therefore investigated the rate of combined intra-operative and post-operative LV lead...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rijal, Shasank, Wolfe, Jonathan, Rattan, Rohit, Durrani, Asad, Althouse, Andrew D., Marroquin, Oscar C., Jain, Sandeep, Mulukutla, Suresh, Saba, Samir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28401860
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2016.10.008
_version_ 1782516121208881152
author Rijal, Shasank
Wolfe, Jonathan
Rattan, Rohit
Durrani, Asad
Althouse, Andrew D.
Marroquin, Oscar C.
Jain, Sandeep
Mulukutla, Suresh
Saba, Samir
author_facet Rijal, Shasank
Wolfe, Jonathan
Rattan, Rohit
Durrani, Asad
Althouse, Andrew D.
Marroquin, Oscar C.
Jain, Sandeep
Mulukutla, Suresh
Saba, Samir
author_sort Rijal, Shasank
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads are capable of pacing from four different electrodes which allows for easier and more stable intra-operative lead positioning with optimal pacing parameters. We therefore investigated the rate of combined intra-operative and post-operative LV lead related events in quadripolar vs. bipolar LV lead cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients in the real world setting. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data for N = 1441 patients at our institution implanted with quadripolar (n = 292) or bipolar (n = 1149) LV leads from 2012 to 2014 and followed them to the primary end-point of composite lead outcome defined as intra-operative lead implant failure or post-operative lead dislodgement or deactivations. RESULTS: Patients implanted with a quadripolar lead were younger (70.6 ± 11.4 vs 72.5 ± 11.6, p = 0.014) and had higher incidence of diabetes (41.8% vs 32.8%, p = 0.004) compared to those with bipolar leads. All other baseline characteristics were comparable. Patients implanted with a quadripolar were significantly less likely to reach the primary endpoint in the first 12 months after LV lead implantation (Hazard Ratio 0.22, 95% Confidence Interval 0.08–0.60, p = 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in rates of hospitalization for any cause or in mortality. CONCLUSION: In this real world study, quadripolar LV leads have significantly lower rates of implantation failure and post-operative lead dislodgement or deactivation. These results have important clinical implications to CRT recipients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5357860
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53578602017-03-27 Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads Rijal, Shasank Wolfe, Jonathan Rattan, Rohit Durrani, Asad Althouse, Andrew D. Marroquin, Oscar C. Jain, Sandeep Mulukutla, Suresh Saba, Samir Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Original Article BACKGROUND: Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads are capable of pacing from four different electrodes which allows for easier and more stable intra-operative lead positioning with optimal pacing parameters. We therefore investigated the rate of combined intra-operative and post-operative LV lead related events in quadripolar vs. bipolar LV lead cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients in the real world setting. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data for N = 1441 patients at our institution implanted with quadripolar (n = 292) or bipolar (n = 1149) LV leads from 2012 to 2014 and followed them to the primary end-point of composite lead outcome defined as intra-operative lead implant failure or post-operative lead dislodgement or deactivations. RESULTS: Patients implanted with a quadripolar lead were younger (70.6 ± 11.4 vs 72.5 ± 11.6, p = 0.014) and had higher incidence of diabetes (41.8% vs 32.8%, p = 0.004) compared to those with bipolar leads. All other baseline characteristics were comparable. Patients implanted with a quadripolar were significantly less likely to reach the primary endpoint in the first 12 months after LV lead implantation (Hazard Ratio 0.22, 95% Confidence Interval 0.08–0.60, p = 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in rates of hospitalization for any cause or in mortality. CONCLUSION: In this real world study, quadripolar LV leads have significantly lower rates of implantation failure and post-operative lead dislodgement or deactivation. These results have important clinical implications to CRT recipients. Elsevier 2016-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5357860/ /pubmed/28401860 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2016.10.008 Text en © 2016, Indian Heart Rhythm Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Rijal, Shasank
Wolfe, Jonathan
Rattan, Rohit
Durrani, Asad
Althouse, Andrew D.
Marroquin, Oscar C.
Jain, Sandeep
Mulukutla, Suresh
Saba, Samir
Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads
title Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads
title_full Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads
title_fullStr Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads
title_full_unstemmed Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads
title_short Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads
title_sort lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28401860
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2016.10.008
work_keys_str_mv AT rijalshasank leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT wolfejonathan leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT rattanrohit leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT durraniasad leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT althouseandrewd leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT marroquinoscarc leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT jainsandeep leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT mulukutlasuresh leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads
AT sabasamir leadrelatedcomplicationsinquadripolarversusbipolarleftventricularleads