Key result
Active can defibrillators improve first-configuration implant defibrillation success by ~14% vs passive can systems.
Why the study?
Does a biphasic active can implantable defibrillator improve implant defibrillation success compared to a passive can system in patients requiring an ICD?
Population
304 patients requiring an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)
Comparison
Biphasic active can implantable defibrillator vs Passive can implantable defibrillator
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
3 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports preferring active can ICDs to boost first-attempt success and shorten procedures; confirms advantages over passive can systems in RCT.
RCT (n=304)
randomized
Yes
Does a biphasic active can implantable defibrillator improve implant defibrillation success compared to a passive can system in patients requiring an ICD?
Absolute Event Rate: 86.3% vs 75.9%
p-value: p=0.023
An active can ICD system simplifies implantation by improving defibrillation success rates, lowering defibrillation thresholds, and reducing implant time compared to a passive can system.
HAFFAJEE et al. (1997) conducted an RCT in Patients requiring an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (n=304). Biphasic active can (AC) implantable defibrillator vs. Passive can (PC) implantable defibrillator was evaluated on Fulfillment of the implant defibrillation criterion on the first configuration (p=0.023). The active can implantable defibrillator improved fulfillment of the implant defibrillation criterion on the first configuration compared to a passive can system (86.3% vs 75.9%; P=0.023).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: