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

References

• Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, et al. ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: developed by the task force on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy of the european society of cardiology (ESC) with the special contribution of the european heart rhythm association (EHRA). Eur Heart J. 2021;42(35):3427–3520 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845–1853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1329–1338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(15):1539–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biffi M, Exner DV, Crossley GH, et al. Occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: the role of left ventricular lead type and placement site. Europace. 15(1): 77–82. 2013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakemi EU, Doukky R, Parzynski CS, et al. Quadripolar versus bipolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: an analysis of the national cardiovascular data registry. Heart Rhythm. 2020;17(1):81–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leshem E, Suleiman M, Laish-Farkash A, et al. Impact of quadripolar LV leads on heart failure hospitalization rates among patients implanted with CRT-D: data from the Israeli ICD registry. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 51(1): 5–12. 2018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forleo GB, Della Rocca DG, Papavasileiou LP, et al. Left ventricular pacing with a new quadripolar transvenous lead for CRT: early results of a prospective comparison with conventional implant outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8(1):31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arias MA, Pachón M, Puchol A, et al. Acute and mid-term outcomes of transvenous implant of a new left ventricular quadripolar lead versus bipolar leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from a single-center prospective database. Cardiol J. 2012;19(5):470–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behar JM, Bostock J, Li AP Z, et al. 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. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 26(5): 540–546. 2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forleo GB, Di Biase L, Bharmi R, et al. Hospitalization rates and associated cost analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with an implantable defibrillator and quadripolar vs. bipolar left ventricular leads: a comparative effectiveness study. Europace. 17(1): 101–107. 2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forleo GB, Di Biase L, Panattoni G, et al. Improved implant and postoperative lead performance in CRT-D patients implanted with a quadripolar left ventricular lead. A 6-month follow-up analysis from a multicenter prospective comparative study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 42(1): 59–66. 2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bencardino G, Di Monaco A, Russo E, et al. Outcome of patients treated by cardiac resynchronization therapy using a quadripolar left ventricular lead. Circ J. 80(3): 613–618. 2016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boriani G, Connors S, Kalarus Z, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with a quadripolar electrode lead decreases complications at 6 months: results of the more-crt randomized trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2(2): 212–220. 2016.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corbisiero R, Kazemian P, Bharmi R, et al. Less with more: hospitalization cost and event rates with quadripolar versus bipolar CRT-D system. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39(10):1038–1045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turakhia MP, Cao M, Fischer A, et al. Reduced mortality associated with quadripolar compared to bipolar left ventricular leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2(4): 426–433. 2016.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Behar JM, Chin HM, Fearn S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads for cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy in a large, multicenter uk registry. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 3(2): 107–116. 2017.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rijal S, Wolfe J, Rattan R, et al. Lead related complications in quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 17(1): 3–7. 2017.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang M, Li X, Liang J, et al. Outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular quadripolar leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41(8): 912–919.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erath JW, Benz AP, Hohnloser SH, et al. Clinical outcomes after implantation of quadripolar compared to bipolar left ventricular leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2019;21(10):1543–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keilegavlen H, Schuster P, Hovstad T, et al. Performance of an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead vs passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy, a randomized trial. J Arrhythm. 2021;37(1):212–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keilegavlen H, Schuster P, Hovstad T, et al. Clinical outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients randomized to an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead versus a passive quadripolar lead. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2021;55(3):153–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raj A, Singh AP, Nath RK, et al. Six months clinical outcome comparison between quadripolar and bipolar left ventricular leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a prospective, non-randomized, single-centre observational study. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 21(3): 162–168. 2021.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erath JW, Vamos M, Domokos D, et al. Effects of implantation of quadripolar left ventricular leads on CRT response. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 55(1): 73–81. 2019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turagam MK, Afzal MR, Iskander S, et al. A meta-analysis of quadripolar versus bipolar left ventricular leads on post-procedural outcomes. J Atr Fibrillation. 9(2): 1472. 2016.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gurevitz O, Nof E, Carasso S, et al. Programmable multiple pacing configurations help to overcome high left ventricular pacing thresholds and avoid phrenic nerve stimulation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(12):1255–1259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronborg MB, Mortensen PT, Kirkfeldt RE, et al. Very long term follow-up of cardiac resynchronization therapy: clinical outcome and predictors of mortality. Eur J Heart Fail. 2008;10(8):796–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornwalt BK, Sprague WW, BeDell P, et al. Agreement is poor among current criteria used to define response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. 2010;121(18):1985–1991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkfeldt RE, Johansen JB, Nohr EA, et al. Complications after cardiac implantable electronic device implantations: an analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort in Denmark. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(18):1186–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derval N, Steendijk P, Gula LJ, et al. Optimizing hemodynamics in heart failure patients by systematic screening of left ventricular pacing sites: the lateral left ventricular wall and the coronary sinus are rarely the best sites. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(6):566–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh JP, Klein HU, Huang DT, et al. Left ventricular lead position and clinical outcome in the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-cardiac resynchronization therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial. Circulation. 2011;123(11):1159–1166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullens W, Grimm RA, Verga T, et al. Insights from a cardiac resynchronization optimization clinic as part of a heart failure disease management program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(9):765–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niazi I, Baker J 2nd, Corbisiero R, et al. Safety and efficacy of multipoint pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: the multipoint pacing trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3(13):1510–1518.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leclercq C, Burri H, Curnis A, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responder to responder conversion rate in the more response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing (MORE-CRT MPP) study: results from Phase I. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(35):2979–2987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leclercq C, Burri H, Curnis A, et al. Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of multipoint pacing therapy: more response on cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing (MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE II). Am Heart J. 2019;209:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varma N, Baker J 2nd, Tomassoni G, et al. Left ventricular enlargement, cardiac resynchronization therapy efficacy, and impact of multipoint pacing. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020;13(11):e008680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siciliano M, Migliore F, Badano L, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy by multipoint pacing improves response of left ventricular mechanics and fluid dynamics: a three-dimensional and particle image velocimetry echo study. Europace. 2017;19(11):1833–1840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappone C, Ćalović Ž, Vicedomini G, et al. Improving cardiac resynchronization therapy response with multipoint left ventricular pacing: twelve-month follow-up study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(6):1250–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappone C, Ćalović Ž, Vicedomini G, et al. Multipoint left ventricular pacing improves acute hemodynamic response assessed with pressure-volume loops in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(3):394–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinaldi CA, Leclercq C, Kranig W, et al. Improvement in acute contractility and hemodynamics with multipoint pacing via a left ventricular quadripolar pacing lead. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2014;40(1):75–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanon F, Baracca E, Pastore G, et al. Multipoint pacing by a left ventricular quadripolar lead improves the acute hemodynamic response to CRT compared with conventional biventricular pacing at any site. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(5):975–981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osca J, Alonso P, Cano O, et al. The use of multisite left ventricular pacing via quadripolar lead improves acute haemodynamics and mechanical dyssynchrony assessed by radial strain speckle tracking: initial results. Europace. 2016;18(4):560–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polyzos KA, Konstantelias AA, Falagas ME. Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2015;17(5):767–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar