Key result
Abandonment of dysfunctional high-voltage leads did not significantly increase the overall rate of complications compared to patients without an additional lead (10.0% vs. 8.9%, P=0.32).
Why the study?
Does abandonment of dysfunctional high-voltage leads increase the risk of complications compared to extraction or primary implantation in patients with ICDs?
Population
903 consecutive patients undergoing 997 implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations or lead revisions
Comparison
Abandonment of dysfunctional high-voltage leads vs Other lead revision strategies and primary…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 48.8 ± 37.8 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports abandonment of dysfunctional HV leads in ICD patients; leaves open randomized confirmation, especially in younger subgroups.
Cohort (n=903)
No
Does abandonment of dysfunctional high-voltage leads increase the risk of complications compared to extraction or primary implantation in patients with ICDs?
Absolute Event Rate: 10% vs 8.9%
p-value: p=0.32
Abandonment of dysfunctional high-voltage leads does not significantly increase the risk of ICD system-related complications compared to extraction or primary implantation in the general ICD population.
Bode et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy (n=903). Abandonment of dysfunctional high-voltage leads (placement of additional HV lead) vs. Other lead revision strategies or primary implantation (no additional HV lead) was evaluated on Overall rate of complications including artefact sensing, ineffective defibrillation, symptomatic subclavian vein thrombosis, and other lead defects (p=0.32). Abandonment of dysfunctional high-voltage leads did not significantly increase the overall rate of complications compared to patients without an additional lead (10.0% vs. 8.9%, P=0.32).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: