Why the study?
Do small (6.6 Fr.) defibrillation leads have similar safety and electrical performance compared to larger leads in patients with standard ICD indications?
Do small (6.6 Fr.) defibrillation leads have similar safety and electrical performance compared to larger leads in patients with standard ICD indications?
Small 6.6 Fr. defibrillation leads offer similar short-term safety and electrical performance to larger leads, with the potential advantage of reduced venous obstruction.
May support smaller leads to reduce venous obstruction in ICD patients; leaves open long-term safety confirmation.
AIMS: The 6.6 Fr. Sprint Fidelis lead family may allow multiple lead implantation procedures with reduced risk of venous obstruction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two prospective, historically controlled, multi-centre studies were conducted in Europe (80 patients) and Canada (79 patients). The purpose was to assess the ventricular lead-related adverse events (LRAEs) and performance of the small Models 6948 and 6949 defibrillation leads, respectively, in patients with a standard indication for an ICD implant. Safety was assessed by demonstrating equivalence of the LRAE free rate at 1 month to comparable but larger leads (Models 6942, 6943, 6944, 6947and 4074). Seventy-five of 80 patients with a 6948 lead (93.8%) remained free of LRAEs. Seventy-four out of 79 patients (93.7%) with the 6949 lead remained free of LRAEs. The 95% lower confidence bounds were above the critical difference limits. Thus, safety of the Sprint Fidelis((R)) leads is similar to that of larger leads. Electrical performance through 1-month follow-up proved to be acceptable in comparison with other established leads. CONCLUSION: These multi-centre studies confirm that smaller defibrillation leads offer similar safety and efficacy features to widely used larger leads; they have low LRAE rates and defibrillation thresholds, while providing the advantage of a smaller introducer size and reduced venous obstruction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Küpper et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: