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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |