Key result
PhotonBlade reduces thermal damage to transvenous cardiac device leads by ~47% versus PlasmaBlade.
Absolute Event Rate: 40% vs 75%
May reduce lead damage risk in device procedures; hypothesis-generating and requires clinical validation before practice change.
His research interests include lead extraction and complex ablation techniques, with a clinical interest in atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia ablation and complex lead management.He is a member of the Heart Rhythm Society. InterviewQuestion: What was your involvement in the lead insulation study presented earlier this year at Heart Rhythm 2018 in Boston, MA? Dr. Schaller: I was part of the investigational team and helped to design and conduct the study as well as report the results.Along with three other physicians from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern University, we independently treated all of the leads with both of the systems under investigation.Question: In your opinion, how does this study compare to any previous work done regarding lead insulation?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert D. Schaller (2018) conducted an editorial in Transvenous cardiac device leads. PhotonBlade vs. PlasmaBlade was evaluated on Lead damage. The PhotonBlade resulted in significantly less thermal damage to transvenous cardiac device leads compared to the PlasmaBlade (40% vs 75% overall lead damage).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: