Jamé Sina, Kutyifa Valentina, Aktas Mehmet K, McNitt Scott, Polonsky Bronislava, Al-Ahmad Amin, Zareba Wojciech, Moss Arthur, Wang Paul J
Stanford University, Stanford, California.
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Jul;13(7):1468-74. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.03.009. Epub 2016 Mar 4.
There are limited data on the significance of left ventricular (LV) lead pacing polarity to predict clinical outcomes.
We aimed to determine the association between the LV lead pacing polarity for heart failure (HF) or death and ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTA) in patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy), receiving a cardiac resynchronization therapy device with implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D).
We retrospectively analyzed LV pacing polarity. Patients with LV bipolar leads paced between LV ring and LV tip were identified as True Bipolar, while those with LV bipolar leads paced between LV tip or LV ring and right ventricular coil or unipolar leads were identified as Unipolar/Extended Bipolar. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used.
Of the 969 patients, 421 had True Bipolar pacing while the remainder (n = 548) had Unipolar/Extended Bipolar pacing. Among patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB), True Bipolar pacing was associated with lower cumulative incidence of death (P = .022) and HF/death (P = .046) compared to those with Unipolar/Extended Bipolar LV pacing. After adjustment for clinical covariates, bipolar LV pacing in LBBB patients was associated with 54% lower risk for death (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.88; P = .020) and 32% lower risk for HF/death (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-1.00; P = .048) compared to Unipolar/Extended Bipolar LV pacing, but not in those with non-LBBB. No association was seen with risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia.
True Bipolar LV pacing configuration is associated with a significantly lower risk of HF/death and all-cause mortality in CRT-D patients with LBBB.
关于左心室(LV)导线起搏极性对预测临床结局的意义的数据有限。
我们旨在确定参加MADIT-CRT(多中心心脏再同步治疗自动除颤器植入试验)并接受植入式心脏复律除颤器(CRT-D)的心脏再同步治疗设备的患者中,用于心力衰竭(HF)或死亡以及室性快速心律失常(VTA)的LV导线起搏极性之间的关联。
我们回顾性分析了LV起搏极性。将LV双极导线在LV环和LV尖端之间起搏的患者确定为真正双极起搏,而将LV双极导线在LV尖端或LV环与右心室线圈之间起搏或单极导线起搏的患者确定为单极/延长双极起搏。使用了Kaplan-Meier生存分析和多变量Cox比例风险回归模型。
在969例患者中,421例进行真正双极起搏,其余(n = 548)进行单极/延长双极起搏。在左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)患者中,与单极/延长双极LV起搏的患者相比,真正双极起搏与较低的累积死亡率(P = 0.022)和HF/死亡率(P = 0.046)相关。在调整临床协变量后,与单极/延长双极LV起搏相比,LBBB患者中的双极LV起搏与死亡风险降低54%(HR:0.46;95%CI:0.24 - 0.88;P = 0.020)和HF/死亡风险降低32%(HR:0.68;95%CI:0.46 - 1.00;P = 0.048)相关,但在非LBBB患者中并非如此。未发现与室性快速心律失常风险相关。
在患有LBBB的CRT-D患者中,真正双极LV起搏配置与HF/死亡和全因死亡率的显著降低风险相关。