Key result
Non-thoracotomy ICD lead systems were associated with significantly prolonged intraoperative testing time compared to thoracotomy systems (57.39 vs 32.30 min; P < 0.0000).
Why the study?
Does the non-thoracotomy ICD lead system affect operative morbidity and mortality compared to the thoracotomy system?
Population
34 patients undergoing attempted intravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation…
Comparison
Non-thoracotomy ICD lead system implantation vs Thoracotomy ICD lead system
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Perioperative
Authors
Loading...
Early non-thoracotomy ICD experience suggests feasible expansion to higher-risk patients; leaves open need for prospective outcome data.
Observational (n=34)
No
Does the non-thoracotomy ICD lead system affect operative morbidity and mortality compared to the thoracotomy system?
Absolute Event Rate: 57.39% vs 32.3%
p-value: p=< 0.0000
Early institutional experience with non-thoracotomy ICD leads demonstrated high implant success (88.2%) but highlighted increased intraoperative morbidity and prolonged testing times compared to traditional thoracotomy approaches.
Frame et al. (1993) conducted an observational in High risk for sudden death requiring ICD (n=34). Non-thoracotomy ICD lead system vs. Thoracotomy ICD lead system was evaluated on Intraoperative testing time (minutes) (p=< 0.0000). Non-thoracotomy ICD lead systems were associated with significantly prolonged intraoperative testing time compared to thoracotomy systems (57.39 vs 32.30 min; P < 0.0000).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: