Why the study?
To evaluate the performance of the atrial sensing dipole in single-lead ICD recipients for diagnosing new-onset AHREs or subclinical AF.
Does VDD-ICD improve the detection of new-onset AHREs or SCAF in ICD recipients compared to VVI-/DDD-ICD?
Population
991 participants across 3 prospective studies
Comparison
VDD-ICD vs contemporary single- and dual-chamber ICD (VVI-/DDD-ICD)
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies
Follow-up
Median 365 days to 847 days
Key result
VDD-ICD significantly increased the detection of new-onset AHREs or subclinical atrial fibrillation compared to VVI-/DDD-ICD (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.2-5.8; p=0.018).
Authors
Loading...
Supports VDD-ICD selection to enhance AHRE/SCAF detection in ICD recipients; confirms meta-analytic superiority over VVI-/DDD systems.
Meta-Analysis (n=991)
Does VDD-ICD improve the detection of new-onset AHREs or SCAF in ICD recipients compared to VVI-/DDD-ICD?
Odds Ratio: 2.6 (95% CI 1.2–5.8)
p-value: p=0.018
The use of a floating atrial sensing dipole in VDD-ICDs significantly increases the detection of new-onset AHREs or subclinical AF compared to VVI-ICDs, with performance similar to DDD-ICDs.
Pung et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients (n=991). VDD-ICD (single lead ICD with atrial sensing dipole) vs. VVI-/DDD-ICD was evaluated on Detection of new-onset atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) or subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF) (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2, 5.8, p=0.018). VDD-ICD significantly increased the detection of new-onset AHREs or subclinical atrial fibrillation compared to VVI-/DDD-ICD (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.2-5.8; p=0.018).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: