Key result
An abdominally placed hot can pulse generator configuration reduced defibrillation energy requirements compared to a single-lead configuration (8.6 J vs 10.43 J; P=0.041).
Why the study?
Does an abdominally positioned hot can electrode reduce defibrillation energy requirements compared to a single-lead configuration in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Population
30 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator or pulse generator replacement
Comparison
Abdominal hot can configuration vs Single-lead configuration
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Acute (during implantation)
Authors
Loading...
Should not yet change ICD practice; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
Does an abdominally positioned hot can electrode reduce defibrillation energy requirements compared to a single-lead configuration in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Effect estimate: 17.5% reduction
Absolute Event Rate: 8.6% vs 10.43%
p-value: p=0.041
An abdominally placed hot can pulse generator significantly lowers defibrillation energy requirements, peak voltage, and impedance compared to a single-lead configuration.
Neuzner et al. (1997) studied Undergoing implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator or pulse generator replacement (n=30). Abdominal hot can configuration vs. Single-lead configuration was evaluated on Defibrillation energy requirements (17.5% reduction, p=0.041). An abdominally placed hot can pulse generator configuration reduced defibrillation energy requirements compared to a single-lead configuration (8.6 J vs 10.43 J; P=0.041).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: