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?
Population
249 patients with standard implantable cardioverter-defibrillator indications but no requirement for…
Comparison
A+-ICD system vs Conventional dual-chamber (DR)-ICD
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
12 months
Key result
The novel A+-ICD system was implanted significantly faster than a standard DR-ICD (67 vs 79 minutes, P=0.003) and showed equivalent detection of tachyarrhythmias.
Authors
Loading...
A+-ICD may shorten implantation with equivalent SVT/VT discrimination; leaves open whether it reduces revisions versus dual-chamber systems.
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?
Absolute Event Rate: 67% vs 79%
p-value: p=0.003
The novel single-lead A+-ICD system reduces implantation time while providing equivalent atrial sensing and arrhythmia discrimination compared to standard dual-chamber ICDs.
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 significantly faster than a standard DR-ICD (67 vs 79 minutes, P=0.003) and showed equivalent detection of tachyarrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: