Why the study?
Does a single-lead unipolar biphasic pulse defibrillation system improve defibrillation energy requirements compared to a three-electrode system with an additional coronary sinus lead in patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation?
Population
15 patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation
Comparison
Single-lead unipolar biphasic pulse… vs Three-electrode system with an additional…
Design
RCT, prospective, randomized fashion
Follow-up
Acute testing (10 seconds after arrhythmia induction)
Authors
Loading...
Single-lead system yields equivalent defibrillation thresholds; supports simplified ICD implantation without efficacy loss in VT/VF.
Does a single-lead unipolar biphasic pulse defibrillation system improve defibrillation energy requirements compared to a three-electrode system with an additional coronary sinus lead in patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation?
A single-lead unipolar transvenous defibrillator is as effective as a more complex three-electrode system, simplifying device implantation without compromising defibrillation efficacy.
Kudenchuk et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: