Search

Aims: This registry was created to describe the experience of 76 Italian centres with a large cohort of recipients of multipoint pacing (MPP) capable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices.Methods and Results: A total of 507 patients in whom these devices had been successfully implanted were enrolled between August 2013 and May 2015. We analysed: (i) current clinical practices for the management of such patients, and (ii) the impact of MPP on heart failure clinical composite response and on the absolute change in ejection fraction (EF) at 6 months. Multipoint pacing was programmed to 'ON' in 46% of patients before discharge. Methods of optimizing MPP programming were most commonly based on either the greatest narrowing of the QRS complex (38%) or the electrical delays between the electrodes (34%). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were evaluated in 232 patients. These patients were divided into two groups according to whether MPP was programmed to 'ON' (n = 94) or 'OFF' (n = 138) at the time of discharge. At 6 months, EF was significantly higher in the MPP group than in the biventricular-pacing group (39.1 ± 9.6 vs. 34.7 ± 7.6%; P < 0.001). Even after adjustments, early MPP activation remained an independent predictor of absolute increase in LVEF of ≥5% (odds ratio 2.5; P = 0.001). At 6 months, an improvement in clinical composite score was recorded in a greater proportion of patients with MPP-ON than in controls (56 vs. 38%; P = 0.009). On comparing optimal MPP and conventional vectors, QRS was also seen to have decreased significantly (P < 0.001).Conclusion: This study provides information that is essential in order to deal with the expected increase in the number of patients receiving MPP devices in the coming years. The results revealed different practices among centres, and establishing the optimal programming that can maximize the benefit of MPP remains a challenging issue. Compared with conventional CRT, MPP improved clinical status and resulted in an additional increase in EF.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02606071. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Flexible left ventricular (LV) pacing configurations are a useful component of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) systems for preventing high LV pacing thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS). A quadripolar LV lead has recently been designed with the purpose of allowing more choices in lead placement location and programming capability. Objective: To verify the effectiveness of quadripolar LV leads compared to conventional bipolar LV leads implant outcomes. Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients underwent implantation with either the quadripolar (n = 22; quadripolar group) or a conventional bipolar LV lead (n = 23; bipolar group). The primary outcome of the study was LV lead failure, defined as the need for lead revision or reprogramming during the first 3 months after implantation. Additionally, operative and follow-up data were prospectively noted and checked for significance between groups. Results: The implantation success rate in both groups was 100%. Baseline characteristics, procedure duration, and fluoroscopy time did not differ significantly between groups. Two lead dislodgments (requiring reoperation) and 4 clinical PNS were reported in the bipolar group; reprogramming of the device was sufficient to prevent PNS in 3 patients, the fourth is pending solution. One PNS successfully managed noninvasively occurred in the quadripolar group. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, event-free survival for the combined primary outcome was significantly lower in patients with quadripolar leads (P = .037). Conclusion: This prospective, controlled study provides strong evidence that CRT with the quadripolar LV lead results in low rates of dislocations and phrenic nerve stimulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) can affect, and in some cases considerably limit, the long-term success of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) therapy. To address this common problem, the manufacturers of CRT devices offer a range of configurations aimed at preventing high left ventricular pacing thresholds (LVPTs) and PNS. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aims: This registry was created to describe the experience of 76 Italian centres with a large cohort of recipients of multipoint pacing (MPP) capable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices., Methods and Results: A total of 507 patients in whom these devices had been successfully implanted were enrolled between August 2013 and May 2015. We analysed: (i) current clinical practices for the management of such patients, and (ii) the impact of MPP on heart failure clinical composite response and on the absolute change in ejection fraction (EF) at 6 months. Multipoint pacing was programmed to 'ON' in 46% of patients before discharge. Methods of optimizing MPP programming were most commonly based on either the greatest narrowing of the QRS complex (38%) or the electrical delays between the electrodes (34%). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were evaluated in 232 patients. These patients were divided into two groups according to whether MPP was programmed to 'ON' (n = 94) or 'OFF' (n = 138) at the time of discharge. At 6 months, EF was significantly higher in the MPP group than in the biventricular-pacing group (39.1 ± 9.6 vs. 34.7 ± 7.6%; P < 0.001). Even after adjustments, early MPP activation remained an independent predictor of absolute increase in LVEF of ≥5% (odds ratio 2.5; P = 0.001). At 6 months, an improvement in clinical composite score was recorded in a greater proportion of patients with MPP-ON than in controls (56 vs. 38%; P = 0.009). On comparing optimal MPP and conventional vectors, QRS was also seen to have decreased significantly (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: This study provides information that is essential in order to deal with the expected increase in the number of patients receiving MPP devices in the coming years. The results revealed different practices among centres, and establishing the optimal programming that can maximize the benefit of MPP remains a challenging issue. Compared with conventional CRT, MPP improved clinical status and resulted in an additional increase in EF., Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02606071., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)