Key result
The novel A+-ICD system was implanted faster than a standard DR-ICD and showed equivalent detection of tachyarrhythmias.
Why the study?
Does a single-lead atrial sensing A+-ICD system reduce implantation time and maintain equivalent rhythm discrimination compared to a conventional dual-chamber ICD in patients without antibradycardia pacing indications?
RCT (n=249)
randomized
Does a single-lead atrial sensing A+-ICD system reduce implantation time and maintain equivalent rhythm discrimination compared to a conventional dual-chamber ICD in patients without antibradycardia pacing indications?
The novel single-lead A+-ICD system reduces implantation time while providing equivalent atrial sensing and arrhythmia discrimination compared to standard dual-chamber ICDs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A+-ICD may shorten implantation with equivalent SVT/VT discrimination; leaves open whether it reduces revisions versus dual-chamber systems.
BACKGROUND: Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias are the main cause for inappropriate therapy by implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). For better rhythm discrimination, an atrial electrogram is helpful and usually obtained from an additional atrial lead, even in the absence of sinus node or atrioventricular nodal disease. An A+-ICD system with integrated atrial sensing rings mounted 15 to 18 cm from the tip of an ICD lead may obviate the need to implant a separate atrial lead. The aim of the study was to compare the novel A+-ICD and a conventional dual-chamber (DR)-ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients with standard ICD indications but no requirement for antibradycardia pacing were randomized to receive an A+-ICD (n=124) or a DR-ICD (n=125). Implantation details, need for ICD system revision, long-term sensing, documented arrhythmia episodes, and the respective rhythm discrimination during follow-up were analyzed. The implantation time was significantly shorter in the A+-ICD group (67±30 vs 79±30 minutes, P=0.003). Mean P-wave amplitudes were 3.5±0.8 mV (A+-ICD) and 3.2±0.6 mV (DR-ICD) and remained stable during the follow-up period of 12 months. Surgical revision was necessary in 13 patients in the DR-ICD and 10 in the A+-ICD group. All 593 ventricular tachyarrhythmia episodes were correctly discriminated. Sensitivity and specificity of supraventricular tachyarrhythmia discrimination were not different between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The novel A+-ICD system can be implanted faster and is equivalent to a standard DR-ICD with regard to the detection of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. It represents a useful alternative to obtain atrial sensing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sticherling et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in Standard ICD indications without antibradycardia pacing requirement (n=249). A+-ICD system vs. DR-ICD system was evaluated on Implantation time (p=0.003). The novel A+-ICD system was implanted faster than a standard DR-ICD and showed equivalent detection of tachyarrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: