Key result
The performance of 7F and 8F Riata ICD leads was similar, with perforation occurring in 0.28% of patients in both groups (P=NS).
Why the study?
Does the use of 7F compared to 8F Riata ICD leads affect lead performance and perforation rates in patients requiring ICDs?
Population
714 patients implanted with a Riata 1580 or 7000 series implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads over a…
Comparison
7 French (7F) Riata 7000 series ICD leads (n=357) vs 8 French (8F) Riata 1580 series ICD leads (n=357)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 to 24 months
Authors
Loading...
Comparable perforation rates support similar 7F/8F Riata lead safety; observational data leave open need for randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=714)
No
Does the use of 7F compared to 8F Riata ICD leads affect lead performance and perforation rates in patients requiring ICDs?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.28% vs 0.28%
p-value: p=NS
The performance and safety of 7F and 8F Riata ICD leads are similar, with low rates of perforation and sensing anomalies, particularly when implanted in nonapical positions.
Corbisiero et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) indication (n=714). Riata 7000 (7F) series lead vs. Riata 1580 (8F) series lead was evaluated on Perforation (p=NS). The performance of 7F and 8F Riata ICD leads was similar, with perforation occurring in 0.28% of patients in both groups (P=NS).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: