Search

Background: Current guidelines recommend avoiding apical left ventricular (LV) pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)., Aims: We investigated the feasibility of nonapical pacing with the current quadripolar LV lead technology., Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients who received CRT with an LV quadripolar lead. The post--implantation position of each electrode of the LV lead was designated as basal, mid, or apical. The pacing capture threshold (PCT) and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) threshold were assessed for each electrode., Results: We enrolled 168 patients. A total of 8 CRT defibrillators were from Biotronik (with Sentus OTW QP leads), 98 were from Boston Scientific (with 21 Acuity X4 Spiral and 77 Acuity X4 Straight leads), and 62 from St. Jude Medical (with Quartet leads). The median (interquartile range) number of electrodes at nonapical segments per patient was 3 (1-4) with Biotronik Sentus leads, 4 (3-4) with spiral -design Boston Scientific leads, 4 (3-4) with straight Boston Scientific leads, and 3 (3-4) with St. Jude Medical Quartet leads (P = 0.045). Three patients (38%) with Biotronik Sentus leads, 21 (100%) with spiral -design Boston Scientific leads, 69 (90%) with straight -design Boston Scientific leads, and 49 (79%) with St. Jude Medical Quartet leads (P <0.001) had at least 1 electrode located at nonapical segments linked with a PNS -PCT safety margin of more than 2 V. During the 6-month follow -up, PNS was detected in 4 patients and was eliminated with reprogramming. No significant changes in PCT were detected during follow -up., Conclusions: Quadripolar leads allowed nonapical pacing with acceptable electrical parameters in the majority of CRT recipients, although differences were found among the currently available devices.

Background: In spite of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefits, 25-30% of patients are still non responders. One of the possible reasons could be the non optimal atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals settings. Our aim was to exploit a numerical model of cardiovascular system for AV and VV intervals optimization in CRT., Methods: A numerical model of the cardiovascular system CRT-dedicated was previously developed. Echocardiographic parameters, Systemic aortic pressure and ECG were collected in 20 consecutive patients before and after CRT. Patient data were simulated by the model that was used to optimize and set into the device the intervals at the baseline and at the follow up. The optimal AV and VV intervals were chosen to optimize the simulated selected variable/s on the base of both echocardiographic and electrocardiographic parameters., Results: Intervals were different for each patient and in most cases, they changed at follow up. The model can well reproduce clinical data as verified with Bland Altman analysis and T-test (p > 0.05). Left ventricular remodeling was 38.7% and left ventricular ejection fraction increasing was 11% against the 15% and 6% reported in literature, respectively., Conclusions: The developed numerical model could reproduce patients conditions at the baseline and at the follow up including the CRT effects. The model could be used to optimize AV and VV intervals at the baseline and at the follow up realizing a personalized and dynamic CRT. A patient tailored CRT could improve patients outcome in comparison to literature data.