The Active Fixation Coronary Sinus Lead: More Peril than Promise?

Lead choice in cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Background: Few data are available regarding lead preferences of electrophysiologists during cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation. Aim of this survey is to evaluate the leads used, and the reasons behind these choices, in a large population of implanters. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 314 Italian centers with experience in CIED implantation. Results: 103 operators from 100 centers (32% of centers) responded. For atrium, passive leads represented first choice for pacemakers and defibrillators (71% and 64% of physicians, respectively), mainly for safety. For right ventricle, active fixation was preferred (61% and 93% operators in pacemaker and defibrillator patients), for higher versatility in positioning and lower dislodgement risk. For left ventricular stimulation, quadripolar leads were preferred by more than 80% of respondents, for better phrenic nerve and myocardial threshold management; active-fixation leads represent a second choice, in order to prevent or manage dislodgement (78% and 17% of respondents, respectively), but 44% of operators considered them dangerous. Conclusions: The choice of leads is heterogeneous. Trends are toward active-fixation right ventricular leads and passive-fixation atrial leads (particularly in pacemaker patients, considered frailer). For left ventricular stimulation, operators' majority want to disposition all kind of leads, although quadripolar leads are the favorites.

Bipolar active fixation left ventricular lead or quadripolar passive fixation lead? An Italian multicenter experience

AIMS

About one-third of patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are not responders, due to either patient selection or technical issues. Left ventricular quadripolar passive fixation leads (QPL) and bipolar active fixation (BAF) leads have been designed to ensure a targeted left ventricular stimulation area, minimizing lead dislodgments and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS). The aim was to compare real-world safety and efficacy of BAF (Attain Stability, Medtronic Plc.) and QPL (Attain Performa, Medtronic Plc.).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis examining procedural and follow-up data of 261 BAF and 124 QPL (programmed to single-site left ventricular pacing), included in the ClinicalService project from 16 Italian hospitals.

RESULTS

At median follow-up of 12 months, no difference in left ventricular pacing threshold was recorded between BAF and QPL (1.3 ± 0.9 V @0.4 ms vs. 1.3 ± 1.0 V @0.4 ms; P = 0.749). Total left ventricular lead dislodgement rate was 1.43/100 patient-years in BAF vs. 2.9/100 patient-years in QPL (P = 0.583). However, no dislodgements occurred among BAF after hospital discharge. Events requiring repeated surgery or permanently turning CRT off occurred in 0.8% of BAF, as compared with 4.0% of QPL (P = 0.025). There was no difference between groups in the echo CRT responders' rate (70% of BAF and 66% of QPL; P = 0.589) or in the annual rate of heart failure hospitalization (P = 0.513).

CONCLUSIONS

BAF resulted in noninferior clinical outcome and CRT responders' rate in comparison to QPL. Moreover, BAF ensured more precise and stable placement in cardiac veins, with comparable electrical performance and less than 1% patients with unsolved PNS.