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

Abstract

AimTo 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 resultsWe 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. ConclusionQuadripolar 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.