Electrical delays in quadripolar leads with cardiac resynchronization therapy. (21st July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Koerber, Scott M.; Field, Michael E.; Cobb, Daniel B.; Gregoski, Mathew J.; Sturdivant, John L.; Gold, Michael R.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 32:Number 9(2021)
• Page Start: 2498
• Page End: 2503
• Publication Date: 2021-07-21
• Subjects: cardiac resynchronization therapy -- dyssynchrony -- pacing; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.15156
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Pacing at sites of late intraventricular activation (QLV) or long interventricular conduction (right ventricle [RV]‐left ventricular [LV]) have been associated with improved cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes. Quadripolar leads improve CRT outcomes by allowing for electrical repositioning to optimize pacing sites. However, little is known regarding the effect of such repositioning on electrical delay. Objective: Determine the relationship between different electrical bipoles from a quadripolar lead and measures of electrical delay. Methods: Forty‐six patients underwent CRT with a quadripolar lead. The RV‐LV and QLV intervals were measured for both the proximal and distal bipoles and the difference (Δ) between bipoles for each measure were calculated. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of electrical delays. Results: This was a typical CRT population with a mean age of 65 years and ejection fraction of 27%, with left bundle branch block (LBBB) present in 70%. The regression model for ΔQLV was significant ( p = .05), with both gender ( p = .008) and LBBB status ( p = .020) significant predictors. The overall regression model for ΔRV‐LV was not significant. ΔQLV and ΔRV‐LV were significant among LBBB patients. Among non‐LBBB, only ΔRV‐LV was significant (mean: 7.2 ms, p = .006). ΔRV‐LV versus ΔQLV were strongly correlated in LBBB ( R 2 = .92) but not non‐LBBB ( R 2 = .06). Conclusion: In LBBB, ΔRV‐LV and ΔQLV are closely correlated suggesting that the proximal bipole and thus basal LV pacing sites should be selected when feasible. Greater variation in activation pattern is present in non‐LBBB, so pacing sites should be individualized.