Key result
Adding a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduced defibrillation energy requirements compared to a single-coil configuration (8.5-8.9 J vs 11.2 J; P<0.01).
Why the study?
Does the addition and position of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduce defibrillation energy requirements in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation?
Population
27 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation
Comparison
Addition of a proximal transvenous coil… vs Single-coil, unipolar configuration
Design
RCT, Order of testing randomized
Authors
Loading...
Supports proximal coil addition in active-can ICDs to lower energy needs; extends RCT data on lead configuration.
RCT (n=27)
Randomized order of testing
Does the addition and position of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduce defibrillation energy requirements in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.9% vs 11.2%
p-value: p=<0.01
Adding a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration significantly reduces defibrillation energy requirements, with no significant difference between high and low SVC positioning.
Gold et al. (2000) conducted an RCT in Defibrillator implantation (n=27). Proximal transvenous coil (high or low SVC) vs. Single-coil, unipolar configuration was evaluated on Stored energies at defibrillation threshold (p=<0.01). Adding a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduced defibrillation energy requirements compared to a single-coil configuration (8.5-8.9 J vs 11.2 J; P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: