Comparative Analysis of Two-Lead DX-Based CRT Versus Conventional Three-Lead CRT-D: Results from a Single-Center Prospective Study.

Background/

Objectives

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF) and intraventricular conduction delays, but a non-negligible risk of infection and of lead functionality loss overtime is related to intravascular hardware. The novel DX system enables atrial sensing through a floating dipole integrated into the ICD lead, reducing the intravascular burden. In this prospective non-randomized study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a two-lead DX-based CRT system compared to a conventional three-lead (3L) CRT-D system.

Methods

A total of 210 patients meeting CRT indications and no signs of sick sinus syndrome (SSS) (baseline HR ≥ 45 bpm, or at least 85 bpm at 6 min walking test) were enrolled. Patients were assigned to either the CRT-DX or conventional 3L CRT-D group. The primary endpoint was a composite clinical response, defined as the freedom from cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, or new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF).

Results

After a mean follow-up of 46.5 ± 1.9 months, both groups had comparable clinical and instrumental outcomes. CRT-DX patients exhibited higher atrial sensing amplitudes and no significant differences in loss of lead function.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the CRT-DX system provides equivalent clinical and echocardiographic benefits compared to conventional CRT-D in patients without an indication for atrial pacing. This supports the use of the DX system as a safe and effective alternative in the majority of CRT recipients.