Key result
Transvenous defibrillation lead systems reduce perioperative mortality, hospitalization, and costs compared with epicardial leads, achieving efficacy in about 90% of patients with dual coil systems.
Why the study?
Do transvenous defibrillation lead systems improve outcomes and efficacy compared to traditional epicardial lead systems in patients requiring ICDs?
Population
Patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators
Comparison
Transvenous defibrillation lead systems vs Traditional epicardial lead systems
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
May support transvenous over epicardial leads to lower perioperative risks in ICD patients; leaves open need for contemporary randomized confirmation.
Do transvenous defibrillation lead systems improve outcomes and efficacy compared to traditional epicardial lead systems in patients requiring ICDs?
Transvenous defibrillation lead systems, particularly active pectoral pulse generators with biphasic waveforms, offer reduced perioperative mortality and high efficacy compared to epicardial systems.
Gold et al. (1996) conducted a review in Ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Transvenous defibrillation lead systems vs. Epicardial lead systems was evaluated. Transvenous defibrillation lead systems reduce perioperative mortality, hospitalization, and costs compared with epicardial leads, achieving efficacy in about 90% of patients with dual coil systems.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: