Key result
Biventricular active can configuration reduces defibrillation threshold energy ~36% versus single RV lead.
Why the study?
A single lead active can configuration occasionally fails to achieve an adequate defibrillation threshold, prompting investigation into whether adding a left ventricular lead improves defibrillation efficacy.
Does a biventricular leads active can configuration reduce defibrillation threshold stored energy in a pig ventricular fibrillation model?
Population
Pig ventricular fibrillation model
Comparison
Seven combinations of RV, LV, and SVC leads with an active can
Design
Animal experimental study
Authors
Loading...
Biventricular active can may lower defibrillation energy in pigs; leaves open translation to human ICD configurations.
Does a biventricular leads active can configuration reduce defibrillation threshold stored energy in a pig ventricular fibrillation model?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.6% vs 15%
p-value: p=0.02
In a preclinical model, a biventricular shocking lead configuration significantly reduced defibrillation threshold energy compared to a single lead configuration.
Yamanouchi et al. (1999) studied ventricular fibrillation. Biventricular leads active can configuration vs. Single RV lead active can configuration was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (DFT) stored energy (p=0.02). A biventricular leads active can configuration reduced the defibrillation threshold stored energy compared to a single RV lead active can configuration (9.6 +/- 3.0 J vs 15.0 +/- 7.2 J, P = 0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: