The Role of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for the Management of Functional Mitral Regurgitation

Valve leaflets and chordae structurally normal characterize functional mitral regurgitation (FMR), which in heart failure (HF) setting results from an imbalance between closing and tethering forces secondary to alterations in the left ventricle (LV) and left atrium geometry. In this context, FMR impacts the quality of life and increases mortality. Despite multiple medical and surgical attempts to treat FMR, to date, there is no univocal treatment for many patients. The pathophysiology of FMR is highly complex and involves several underlying mechanisms. Left ventricle dyssynchrony may contribute to FMR onset and worsening and represents an important target for FMR management. In this article, we discuss the mechanisms of FMR and review the potential therapeutic role of CRT, providing a comprehensive review of the available data coming from clinical studies and trials.

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

INTRODUCTION

In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, transvenous left ventricular (LV) leads are more prone to instability, high pacing thresholds, and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) that may necessitate lead revision, replacement in a suboptimal position, or deactivation of the lead. To overcome some of these challenges, quadripolar (QP) LV leads have been developed and accounted for over 90% of implanted LV leads 5 years after they were introduced.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the current evidence of implanting QP leads in CRT as compared with traditional bipolar (BP) leads including details about feasibility, safety and lead performance, clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

EXPERT OPINION

Based on the current literature, implantation with a QP lead decreases revision rates but does not affect any clinical outcomes including mortality, hospitalization, symptoms, or echocardiographic parameters. Feasibility and stability do not differ between QP and BP leads. A QP lead should be preferred as first choice over a BP lead due to lower rates of PNS and lower pacing thresholds leading to less frequent lead revisions and battery replacements. In addition, this strategy may be cost saving despite a higher price of QP leads.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with multipoint pacing via quadripolar lead versus traditional biventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on hemodynamic, clinical, and prognostic parameters

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the cornerstones of heart failure (HF) therapy, as it has reduced mortality and morbidity and has shown improvement in functional capacity. Multipoint pacing (MPP) is a way of configuring CRT with the aim to improve the percentage of patients who respond to CRT.

Objective

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MPP compared to traditional biventricular pacing (BiV).

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines of studies in which MPP vs BiV strategy were compared.

Results

MPP use is associated with a higher rate of patients experiencing functional improvement (odds ratio: 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56–4.06; P = .0002) and with higher delta LV dP/dt_max (mean difference, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.24–3.39; P = .0240) with respect to BiV. MPP and BiV have no significantly different effect on left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, -11.12 to 11.89; P = .9475); moreover, there is no significant difference between the 2 treatments regarding hospitalization for HF (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.54; P = .3816) and all-cause death (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.62; P = .5460). MPP is associated with a significantly lower projected battery longevity (mean difference -8.66 months; 95% CI, -13.67 to -3.66; P = .00007) with respect to BiV.

Conclusion

MPP significantly improves functional class and acute hemodynamic parameters with respect to BiV. Prognostic indices and LVESV are not significantly influenced by MPP. MPP is associated with a significant reduction in projected battery longevity.

Six months clinical outcome comparison between quadripolar and bipolar left ventricular leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: A prospective, non-randomized, single-centre observational study

Background and objectives

Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) offer multi-vector pacing with different pacing configurations and hence enabling LV pacing at most suitable site with better lead stability. We aim to compare the outcomes between quadripolar and bipolar LV lead in patients receiving CRT.

Methods

In this prospective, non-randomized, single-center observational study, we enrolled 93 patients receiving CRT with bipolar (BiP) (n = 31) and quadripolar (Quad) (n = 62) LV lead between August 2016 to August 2019. Patients were followed for six months, and outcomes were compared with respect to CRT response (defined as ≥5% absolute increase in left ventricle ejection fraction), electrocardiographic, echocardiographic parameters, NYHA functional class improvement, and incidence of LV lead-related complication.

Results

At the end of six months follow up, CRT with quadripolar lead was associated with better response rate as compared to bipolar pacing (85.48% vs 64.51%; p = 0.03), lesser heart failure (HF) hospitalization events (1.5 vs 2; p = 0.04) and better improvement in HF symptoms (patients with ≥1 NYHA improvement 87.09% vs 67.74%; p = 0.04). There were fewer deaths per 100 patient-year (6.45 vs 9.37; p = 0.04) and more narrowing of QRS duration (Δ12.56 ± 3.11 ms vs Δ7.29 ± 1.87 ms; p = 0.04) with quadripolar lead use. Lead related complications were significantly more with the use of bipolar lead (74.19% vs 41.94%; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Our prospective, non-randomized, single-center observational study reveals that patients receiving CRT with quadripolar leads have a better response to therapy, lesser heart failure hospitalizations, lower all-cause mortality, and fewer lead-related complications, proving its superiority over the bipolar lead.

Clinical outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients randomized to an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead versus a passive quadripolar lead

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients receiving a bipolar left ventricular (LV) lead with a side helix for active fixation to the outcome in patients receiving a quadripolar passive fixation LV lead.Design: Sixty-two patients (mean age 72 ± 11 years) were blindly and randomly assigned to the active fixation bipolar lead group (n = 31) or to the quadripolar lead group (n= 31). The LV leads were targeted to the basal LV segment in a vein concordant to the LV segment with the latest mechanical contraction chosen on the basis of preoperative radial strain (RS) echocardiography.Results: At the 6-month follow-up (FU), the reduction in LV end-systolic volume and LV reverse remodelling responder rate, defined as LV end-systolic volume reduction >15%, was 77% in the active fixation group and 83% in the quadripolar group, which was not significantly different. At the 12-month FU, the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) did not differ between the groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in changes in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class or Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score. The occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) was 19% in the active fixation group versus 10% in the quadripolar group (p=.30), and all cases were resolved by reprogramming the device. All patients were alive at the 12-month FU. There was no device infection.Conclusions: There were no significant differences between the active fixation group of patients and the quadripolar group of patients concerning improvement in echocardiographic parameters or clinical symptoms.ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04632472.

Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected patients with systolic heart failure. Unlike conventional biventricular pacing (BIP), the left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) can increase the number of left ventricular pacing sites via a quadripolar lead positioned in the coronary sinus. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the clinical outcome of MPP in comparison with BIP. We systematically searched the databases of EMBASE, Ovid medline, and Cochrane Library through May 2018 for studies comparing the clinical outcome of MPP with BIP in the patients who accepted CRT. Hospitalization for reason of heart failure, left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), CRT response, all-cause morbidity, and cardiovascular death rate was collected for meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 29,606 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with BIP group, MPP decreased heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.50; P < 0.00001), improved LVEF (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, 3.11 to 6.83; P < 0.00001), increased CRT response (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.68 to 7.87; P = 0.001), and decreased all-cause morbidity (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.66; P = 0.0002) and cardiovascular death rate (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < 0.00001). The published literature demonstrates that MPP was more effective than BIP in the heart failure patients who accepted cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Clinical outcomes after implantation of quadripolar compared to bipolar left ventricular leads in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Some retrospective and prospective studies in heart failure patients with indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) suggest better clinical outcomes for quadripolar (QP) left ventricular (LV) leads over bipolar (BP) leads. Although, lead failure remains an important safety concern, when using these more complex, novel electrodes. To evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes for QP vs. BP LV leads in patients receiving CRT.

Methods and results

We performed a comprehensive literature search through 2018 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases to identify studies comparing patients with QP and BP LV CRT leads. A total of 12 studies were selected for analysis comprising 31 403 patients (QP lead: 22 429 patients; BP lead: 8974 patients). Eight studies examined the effects of CRT on survival. In these studies, use of QP electrodes was associated with significantly better survival compared to patients with BP LV leads (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50–0.76; P < 0.01). Clinical improval measured in New York Heart Association functional class (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34–1.01; P = 0.05) and hospitalization rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55–0.83; P < 0.01) were also improved in patients receiving QP leads. Lead malfunctions defined as LV lead failure resulting in lead deactivation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34–0.98; P = 0.04) or LV lead dislodgement requiring LV lead replacement/repositioning (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31–0.75; P < 0.01) were more often encountered among patients with BP leads compared to patients with QP leads.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis suggests distinct benefits of QP over BP electrodes in patients undergoing CRT.

Outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular quadripolar leads

BACKGROUND

Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads provide a more optimal pacing configuration for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) than conventional bipolar leads. The objective of this study is to determine the clinical outcomes of CRT using quadripolar leads.

METHODS

This study included 516 CRT patients who received bipolar LV leads (n = 278) or quadripolar LV leads (n = 238) from January 2013 to June 2016. Data were retrospectively collected from a prospective CRT database and electronic health records. CRT response to CRT was defined as >5% improvement in the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

New York Heart Association Functional Classification and LVEF significantly improved in the quadripolar and bipolar groups after CRT. There was no difference in the all-cause mortality rate. The implant success rate was significantly higher in the quadripolar group (100% vs 97.8%; P = 0.02). Quadripolar lead placement was an independent predictor of CRT response at 12 months (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.98; P = 0.04). The rate of LV lead-related complications requiring invasive lead revision or abandonment was significantly higher in the bipolar group (11.2% vs 4.6%; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Quadripolar leads achieve similar CRT outcomes as bipolar LV leads but with a higher implant success rate and fewer procedure-related complications.

Repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations with quadripolar leads improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A single-center randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate whether repetitive optimizing left ventricular pacing configurations (LVPCs) with quadripolar leads (QUAD) can improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

Fifty-two eligible patients were enrolled and 1:1 randomized to either the quadripolar LV leads (QUAD) group or the conventional bipolar leads (CONV) group. In the QUAD group, optimization of LVPC was performed for all patients before discharge and for nonresponders at 3 months follow-up. Clinical evaluations and transthoracic echocardiograms were performed before, 3, and 6 months after CRT implantation.

RESULTS

At 3 months follow-up, 16 of 25 (64%) patients in the CONV group (1 patient was lost to follow-up) and 18 of 26 (69%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders. After optimizing the LVPCs in 3-month nonresponders in the QUAD group, 21 of 26 (80.8%) patients in the QUAD group were classified as responders at 6 months as compared with 17 of 25 (68%) patients in the CONV group. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increase, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction at 6 months were significantly greater in the QUAD group than in the CONV group (LVESV: -26.9 ± 13.8 vs -17.2 ± 13.3%; P = .013; LVEF: +12.7 ± 8.0 vs +7.8 ± 6.3 percentage points; P = .017; NYHA: -1.27 ± 0.67 vs -0.72 ± 0.54 functional classes; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional bipolar leads, CRT using quadripolar leads with repetitive optimized LVPCs resulted in an additional increase in LVEF and reduction in LVESV and NYHA functional class at 6-month follow-up.

Short-Term Availability of Viable Left Ventricular Pacing Sites with Quartet™ Quadripolar Leads

BACKGROUND Whether quadripolar leads can provide sufficient viable left ventricular pacing sites (LVPSs) for device optimization and multipoint pacing remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the acute and 3-month availability of viable LVPSs provided by a quadripolar LV pacing lead. MATERIAL AND METHODS A single-center cohort study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent a CRT implant with the QuartetTM LV lead under local guidelines. The availability of viable LVPSs was assessed at the pre-discharge and 3-month follow-up visit. Bipolar lead configurations, which served as the control group, were modeled by eliminating the 2 proximal electrodes on the Quartet™ LV lead. RESULTS A total of 24 patients were enrolled and finished 3-month follow-up. The mean follow-up period was 93±3 days. At pre-discharge, the Quartet™ LV lead provided more viable LVPSs compared with the bipolar equivalents (median 3 [IQR 2-4] vs. median 2 [IQR 1-2], P<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least 1, 2, 3, and 4 viable LVPSs were 100% (24/24), 91.7% (22/24), 58.3% (14/24), and 33.3% (8/24) for Quartet™ leads and 91.7% (22/24), 70.8% (17/24), 0% (0/24), and 0% (0/24) for bipolar lead configurations, respectively. The median and IQR values of viable LVPSs provided by the Quartet™ LV lead remained the same (3 [IQR 2-4]) between pre-discharge and 3-month follow-up (P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS Compared with the bipolar equivalent, QuartetTM LV lead provides more viable LVPSs and opportunities for CRT optimization and multipoint LV pacing. The number of LVPSs provided by Quartet™ leads remained unchanged between pre-discharge and 3-month follow-up.