Key result
Biventricular ICDs had a significantly higher annual incidence of surgical revision for complications compared to single- and dual-chamber devices (11.8% vs 4.9% and 4.1%; RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.38-4.04).
Why the study?
Does biventricular ICD implantation increase the risk of surgical revision compared to single- or dual-chamber ICDs in ICD recipients?
Cohort (n=816)
Does biventricular ICD implantation increase the risk of surgical revision compared to single- or dual-chamber ICDs in ICD recipients?
Effect estimate: RR 2.37 (95% CI 1.38-4.04)
Absolute Event Rate: 11.8% vs 4.9%
p-value: p=0.002
Biventricular ICDs have a significantly higher rate of complications requiring surgical revision compared to single- and dual-chamber devices, primarily driven by lead-related issues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biventricular ICDs were associated with higher revision rates; should not yet change practice pending randomized confirmation.
Duray et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients (n=816). Biventricular (BiV) ICD vs. Single-chamber (SC) and dual-chamber (DC) ICDs was evaluated on Surgical re-intervention for device- or lead-related complications (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.38-4.04, p=0.002). Biventricular ICDs had a significantly higher annual incidence of surgical revision for complications compared to single- and dual-chamber devices (11.8% vs 4.9% and 4.1%; RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.38-4.04).