Key result
ThinLine coradial bipolar leads demonstrated lower capture thresholds than coaxial controls, comparable sensing, and acceptable impedances over 17,530 device months.
Why the study?
Do ThinLine coradial bipolar leads improve pacing thresholds and safety compared to conventional coaxial leads in patients requiring cardiac pacing?
RCT (n=1,068)
Randomized (intensive phase)
Yes
Do ThinLine coradial bipolar leads improve pacing thresholds and safety compared to conventional coaxial leads in patients requiring cardiac pacing?
ThinLine coradial bipolar leads demonstrate safety, efficacy, and favorable handling characteristics with lower capture thresholds compared to conventional coaxial leads.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support ThinLine leads for lower thresholds in paced patients; extends observational comparisons but leaves open randomized confirmation.
Belott et al. (1998) conducted an RCT in Cardiac pacing (n=1,068). ThinLine coradial bipolar leads vs. Conventional coaxial leads was evaluated on Safety and efficacy (capture and sensing thresholds, lead impedance, handling characteristics, and clinical events). ThinLine coradial bipolar leads demonstrated lower capture thresholds than coaxial controls, comparable sensing, and acceptable impedances over 17,530 device months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: