Key result
Auxiliary middle cardiac vein shock reduces defibrillation threshold by ~23% over conventional shock alone.
Why the study?
Defibrillation in the middle cardiac vein and low amplitude auxiliary shocks have been shown to reduce ventricular defibrillation thresholds, but the impact of an auxiliary shock from a transvenously placed MCV lead system was not investigated.
Does an auxiliary shock delivered from a transvenously placed middle cardiac vein lead system reduce ventricular defibrillation thresholds in a porcine model?
Population
8 anesthetized pigs (35-43 kg)
Comparison
Primary biphasic shock from RV to Can alone vs with auxiliary shock from MCV lead
Design
Randomized preclinical study
Authors
Loading...
Transvenous MCV auxiliary shock reduced DFT 23% in this model; leaves open translation to human ICD outcomes.
RCT (n=8)
Randomized
Does an auxiliary shock delivered from a transvenously placed middle cardiac vein lead system reduce ventricular defibrillation thresholds in a porcine model?
Effect estimate: 23% reduction
p-value: p=< 0.05
Delivering an auxiliary shock from a transvenous lead system in the middle cardiac vein reduces the defibrillation threshold by 23% compared to a conventional RV-to-Can shock alone in a porcine model.
ROBERTS et al. (2000) conducted an RCT in Ventricular fibrillation (n=8). Auxiliary shock from a transvenously placed middle cardiac vein lead system vs. No auxiliary shock (conventional RV to Can shock alone) was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (DFT) (23% reduction, p=< 0.05). Delivering an auxiliary shock from a transvenous lead system deployed in the middle cardiac vein reduced the defibrillation threshold by 23% compared to a conventional shock alone (P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: