Key result
Small-diameter ICD leads were associated with a higher incidence of delayed cardiac perforation compared to standard-diameter leads (1.6% vs 0%, P=0.01).
Why the study?
Do small-diameter ICD leads increase the risk of delayed cardiac perforation compared to standard-diameter leads in patients receiving ICDs?
Population
858 patients receiving ICD leads at a single center between January 2003 and October 2009
Comparison
Small-diameter ICD leads vs Standard-diameter (>8 Fr) ICD leads (n=421)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 421 days
Authors
Loading...
Small-diameter ICD leads may warrant closer perforation surveillance; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=858)
No
Do small-diameter ICD leads increase the risk of delayed cardiac perforation compared to standard-diameter leads in patients receiving ICDs?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.6% vs 0%
p-value: p=0.01
Small-diameter active-fixation ICD leads, particularly the Riata model, carry a significantly higher risk of delayed cardiac perforation compared to standard-diameter leads.
Rordorf et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in ICD implantation (n=858). Small-diameter ICD leads vs. Standard-diameter (>8 Fr) ICD leads was evaluated on Delayed cardiac perforation (DCP) (p=0.01). Small-diameter ICD leads were associated with a higher incidence of delayed cardiac perforation compared to standard-diameter leads (1.6% vs 0%, P=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: