Long-Term Performance Comparison of Bipolar Active vs. Quadripolar Passive Fixation Leads in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy.

Bipolar active fixation (BipolarAFL) and quadripolar passive fixation left-ventricular leads (QuadPFL) have been designed to reduce the risk of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS), enable targeted left-ventricular pacing, and overcome problems of difficult coronary venous anatomy and lead dislodgment. This study sought to report the long-term safety and performance of a BipolarAFL, Medtronic Attain Stability 20066, compared to QuadPFL. We performed a single-operator retrospective analysis of 81 patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (36 BipolarAFL, 45 QuadPFL). Immediate implant data and electrical and clinical data during follow-up (FU) were analyzed. BipolarAFL has been chosen in patients with significantly larger estimated vein diameter (at the lead tip: 7.2 ± 4.1 Fr vs. 4.1 ± 2.3 Fr, < 0.001) without significant time difference until the final lead position was achieved (BipolarAFL: 20.9 ± 10.5 min, vs. QuadPFL: 18.9 ± 8.9 min, = 0.35). At 12 month FU no difference in response rate to CRT was recorded between BipolarAFL and QuadPFL according to left ventricular end-systolic volume (61.1 vs. 60.0%, = 0.82) and New York Heart Association (66.7 vs. 62.2%, = 0.32). At median FU of 48 months (IQR: 44-54), no lead dislodgment occurred in both groups but a significantly higher proportion of PNS was recorded in QuadPFL (13 vs. 0%, < 0.05). Electrical parameters were stable during FU in both groups without significant differences. BipolarAFL can be implanted with ease in challenging coronary venous anatomy, shows excellent electrical performance and no difference in clinical outcome compared to QuadPFL.