December 1, 2024Journal of Cardiovascular Development and DiseaseOpen Access

Atrial arrhythmia episodes were detected more frequently by VDD systems compared to VVI ICDs (aHR 7.087; 95% CI 2.371–21.183; p < 0.001), and at a rate similar to that of DDD ICDs (aHR 1.781; 95% CI 0.737–4.301; p = 0.200).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

VDD ICD systems provide atrial sensing via a single lead, but their arrhythmia detection efficacy compared with conventional single- and dual-chamber defibrillators required evaluation.

Does an atrioventricular defibrillator system with a floating atrial dipole (VDD ICD) improve the detection of new-onset atrial arrhythmias compared to conventional single- and dual-chamber defibrillators in patients undergoing ICD implantation?

Population

256 consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation

Comparison

VDD ICDs vs conventional VVI and DDD defibrillators

Design

Retrospective cohort study

Follow-up

Mean 3.7 ± 2.4 years

Authors

FGFlóra Diána Gausz KLKom Nangob Manuela Lena MMM Miklos

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Hypothesis-generating for VDD ICDs in AF-prone patients; prospective trials needed before changing device selection.

Structured PICO

Population

256 consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation (mean age 64 ± 12 years, male 75%, primary prophylaxis 28%)

Intervention

Atrioventricular defibrillator system with a floating atrial dipole (VDD ICD) (n=94)

Comparator

Conventional single-chamber (VVI, n=93) and dual-chamber (DDD, n=69) defibrillators

Outcome

Incidence of device-detected, new-onset atrial arrhythmiassurrogate

VDD ICDs offer superior atrial arrhythmia detection compared to VVI systems and perform similarly to DDD systems, without increasing inappropriate shocks.

Cite This Study

Gausz et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7fd63d4fa3c9b321b9ac09 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11120386

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

December 1, 2024Journal of Cardiovascular Development and DiseaseOpen Access

Atrial arrhythmia episodes were detected more frequently by VDD systems compared to VVI ICDs (aHR 7.087; 95% CI 2.371–21.183; p < 0.001), and at a rate similar to that of DDD ICDs (aHR 1.781; 95% CI 0.737–4.301; p = 0.200).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

VDD ICD systems provide atrial sensing via a single lead, but their arrhythmia detection efficacy compared with conventional single- and dual-chamber defibrillators required evaluation.

Population

256 consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation

Comparison

VDD ICDs vs conventional VVI and DDD defibrillators

Design

Retrospective cohort study

Follow-up

Mean 3.7 ± 2.4 years

Authors

FGFlóra Diána Gausz KLKom Nangob Manuela Lena MMM Miklos

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Hypothesis-generating for VDD ICDs in AF-prone patients; prospective trials needed before changing device selection.

Structured PICO

Population

256 consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation (mean age 64 ± 12 years, male 75%, primary prophylaxis 28%)

Intervention

Atrioventricular defibrillator system with a floating atrial dipole (VDD ICD) (n=94)

Comparator

Conventional single-chamber (VVI, n=93) and dual-chamber (DDD, n=69) defibrillators

Outcome

Incidence of device-detected, new-onset atrial arrhythmiassurrogate

VDD ICDs offer superior atrial arrhythmia detection compared to VVI systems and perform similarly to DDD systems, without increasing inappropriate shocks.

Cite This Study

Gausz et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7fd63d4fa3c9b321b9ac09 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11120386

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark