Key result
Middle cardiac vein leads cut defibrillation thresholds ~56% compared to conventional RV leads.
Why the study?
The efficacy of a novel defibrillation lead system placed in the middle cardiac vein compared to a conventional non-thoracotomy lead system was unknown.
Does a novel lead system placed in the middle cardiac vein reduce defibrillation energy requirements compared to a conventional non-thoracotomy lead system in a pig model?
Comparison
Novel middle cardiac vein lead system vs conventional non-thoracotomy lead system
Design
Randomised preclinical study
Authors
Loading...
Novel middle cardiac vein defibrillation leads feasible in pigs; leaves open human efficacy and safety.
RCT (n=8)
randomised
Does a novel lead system placed in the middle cardiac vein reduce defibrillation energy requirements compared to a conventional non-thoracotomy lead system in a pig model?
Absolute Event Rate: 11.9% vs 27.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
Placement of defibrillation electrodes within the middle cardiac vein significantly reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared to conventional right ventricular leads in a porcine model.
Paul Richard Roberts (2000) conducted an RCT in Ventricular fibrillation (n=8). Electrode configurations incorporating the middle cardiac vein (MCV) vs. Conventional non-thoracotomy lead system (RV-->AH and RV-->SCV+AH) was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (p=<0.001). Electrode configurations incorporating the middle cardiac vein significantly reduced mean defibrillation thresholds compared to conventional right ventricular leads (11.9 J vs 27.3 J; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: