Key result
The Active Can configuration resulted in similar defibrillation threshold energy compared to the Lead Alone configuration (9.0 ± 4.6 J vs. 9.8 ± 5.2 J) during routine pulse generator replacement.
Why the study?
Does an Active Can configuration affect chronic defibrillation thresholds compared to a Lead Alone configuration in patients undergoing ICD pulse generator replacement?
Population
39 patients presenting for routine abdominal implantable cardioverter defibrillator pulse generator…
Comparison
Active Can configuration during defibrillation… vs Lead Alone configuration during defibrillation…
Design
RCT, order of testing randomized
Authors
Loading...
Supports active-can use during abdominal ICD replacement; confirms equivalent chronic defibrillation thresholds with dual-coil leads.
RCT (n=39)
randomized
Does an Active Can configuration affect chronic defibrillation thresholds compared to a Lead Alone configuration in patients undergoing ICD pulse generator replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 9% vs 9.8%
p-value: p=not significant
Using an active abdominal pulse generator with older dual-coil transvenous ICD leads results in similar defibrillation thresholds compared to lead-alone configurations, supporting its use during routine generator replacements.
Rashba et al. (2006) conducted an RCT in Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) (n=39). Active Can configuration (RV --> SVC + Can) vs. Lead Alone configuration (RV --> SVC) was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (DFT) energy (p=not significant). The Active Can configuration resulted in similar defibrillation threshold energy compared to the Lead Alone configuration (9.0 ± 4.6 J vs. 9.8 ± 5.2 J) during routine pulse generator replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: