Key result
A middle cardiac vein anode alone or combined with an RV anode significantly reduced the defibrillation threshold compared to an RV anode alone in pigs (7.5 and 7.3 J vs 13.8 J; P<0.000).
Why the study?
Does a middle cardiac vein defibrillation coil reduce defibrillation threshold compared to an RV anode in a porcine model?
Population
12 anesthetized pigs with an active housing implanted in the left pectoral region and defibrillation coils…
Comparison
Middle cardiac vein defibrillation coil used as… vs RV anode alone
Design
Preclinical, order of testing was randomized
Authors
Loading...
May guide novel ICD lead designs; hypothesis-generating pending human translation.
RCT (n=12)
randomized
Does a middle cardiac vein defibrillation coil reduce defibrillation threshold compared to an RV anode in a porcine model?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.5% vs 13.8%
p-value: p=<0.000
In a porcine model, using a middle cardiac vein defibrillation coil as a stand-alone or auxiliary anode significantly lowers the defibrillation threshold compared to a standard RV anode.
Paisey et al. (2004) conducted an RCT in Defibrillation threshold testing (n=12). Middle cardiac vein anode (alone or with RV anode) vs. RV anode alone was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (DFT) (p=<0.000). A middle cardiac vein anode alone or combined with an RV anode significantly reduced the defibrillation threshold compared to an RV anode alone in pigs (7.5 and 7.3 J vs 13.8 J; P<0.000).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: