Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Performance of an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead vs passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy, a randomized trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Performance of an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead vs passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy, a randomized trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Performance of an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead vs passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy, a randomized trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Performance of an active fixation bipolar left ventricular lead vs passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy, a randomized trial
2021
Overview
Background Usage of active fixation bipolar left ventricular (LV) leads represents an alternative approach to the more commonly used passive fixation quadripolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We compared a bipolar LV lead with a side screw for active fixation and passive fixation quadripolar LV leads. Methods Sixty‐two patients were before CRT implantations randomly allocated to receive a bipolar (n = 31) or quadripolar (n = 31) LV leads. Speckle‐tracking radial strain echocardiography was used to define the LV segment with latest mechanical activation as the target LV segment. The electrophysiological measurements and the capability to obtain a proximal position in a coronary vein placed over the target segment were assessed. Results Upon implantation, the quadripolar lead demonstrated a lower pacing capture threshold than the bipolar lead, but at follow‐up, there was no difference. There were no differences in the LV lead implant times or radiation doses. The success rate in reaching the target location was not significantly different between the two LV leads. Conclusions The pacing capture thresholds were low, with no significant difference between active fixation bipolar leads and quadripolar leads. Active fixation leads did not promote a more proximal location of the stimulating electrode or a higher grade of concordance to the target segment than passive fixation leads. An active fixation bipolar left ventricular pacemaker lead was compared to passive fixation quadripolar leads in a randomized trial. There were no differences between the types of leads in pacing capture thresholds, procedure times, or success rate to reach the target location.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
