Key result
Left subclavian anode placement links to ~39% higher absolute defibrillation success vs superior vena cava.
Why the study?
Does placing the defibrillation anode in the left subclavian vein improve endovenous defibrillation success compared to the superior vena cava in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Population
33 patients undergoing implantation of an endovenous cardioverter defibrillator for treatment of ventricular…
Comparison
Defibrillation anode placed in the left… vs Defibrillation anode placed in the superior vena…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Left subclavian anode placement was associated with higher defibrillation success; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=33)
Does placing the defibrillation anode in the left subclavian vein improve endovenous defibrillation success compared to the superior vena cava in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 67% vs 28%
p-value: p=< 0.05
Placing the second defibrillation lead in the left subclavian vein significantly improves endovenous defibrillation efficacy compared to the standard superior vena cava position.
Markewitz et al. (1995) conducted a cohort in Ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (n=33). Defibrillation anode placed in the left subclavian vein vs. Defibrillation anode placed in the superior vena cava was evaluated on Success rate of endovenous defibrillation (p=< 0.05). Placing the defibrillation anode in the left subclavian vein achieved a higher success rate of endovenous defibrillation compared to the superior vena cava (67% vs 28%, P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: