Background: Quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads are capable of sensing and pacing the left ventricle from 4 different electrodes, which may potentially improve patient response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
Objective: We measured 3 different time intervals: right ventricular (RV)-sensed to LV-sensed during intrinsic rhythm (RVs-LVs), RV-paced to LV-sensed (RVp-LVs), and LV-paced to LV-sensed (LVp-LVs, between distal [LV1] and proximal pole on a quadripolar LV lead), and assessed their association with CRT response in terms of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) and a composite benefit index (CBI) comprising LVESV, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), brain natriuretic peptide level, and NYHA class.
Methods: A CRT-defibrillator system with quadripolar LV lead was implanted in 196 patients (mean age 69 years, mean LVEF 30%, left bundle-branch block [LBBB] 58%). Conduction intervals were measured before hospital discharge. At baseline and 7-month follow-up, echocardiographic and other components of CBI were determined.
Results: The mean RVs-LV1s, RVp-LV1s, and LVp-LVs delays were 68 ± 38 ms, 132 ± 34 ms, and 99 ± 31 ms, respectively. From baseline to 7 months, LVESV decreased by 17.3% ± 28.6%. The RVs-LV1s interval correlated stronger with CBI (R2 = 0.12, P < .00001) than with LVESV change (R2 = 0.05, P = .006). In contrast, RVp-LV1s did not correlate and LVp-LVs correlated only weakly with CRT response. The subgroup of patients (44%) with LBBB and RVs-LV1s above the lower quartile (≥34 ms) showed the greatest response to CRT.
Conclusion: The RVs-LVs interval during intrinsic rhythm is relevant for CRT success, whereas RVp-LVs and LVp-LVs intervals did not predict CRT response.
Keywords: CRT response; Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); Composite benefit index; Interventricular electrical delay; Left ventricular end-systolic volume; Quadripolar left ventricular lead.
© 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.