The CPI Endotak lead system reduced mean implant time (2.5 vs 3.3 hours; P=0.02) and mean defibrillation threshold (15 vs 17 J; P=0.03) compared to the Medtronic PCD system.
Cohort (n=170)
Do different nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator systems (CPI Endotak vs Medtronic PCD) differ in implantation success, procedural metrics, and survival in patients with VT or VF?
Both nonthoracotomy defibrillator systems offer comparable successful implantation and survival rates, but incorporating two defibrillating electrodes in one lead (Endotak) reduces implant time and minimizes lead dislodgment.
Absolute Event Rate: 2.5% vs 3.3%
p-value: p=0.02
Implantation of a nonthoracotomy system (Medtronic PCD or CPI Endotak) was attempted in 170 patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) not requiring concomitant cardiac surgery. A nonthoracotomy system could be successfully implanted in 95 of the 115 patients with the PCD system and 49 of 55 patients receiving the Endotak lead system. In 26 patients with failed nonthoracotomy system because of defibrillation threshold (DFT) > 25 joules (J), an epicardial system was implanted at the same setting. Patients receiving the two lead systems were comparable with regard to age, sex, and ejection fraction. However, since the PCD system offers tiered therapy multiprogrammable options, all attempts were made to implant this lead system in patients with VT that could be pace terminated. Mean DFT (15 +/- 4.7 vs 17 +/- 4.6 J; P = 0.03) and implant time (2.5 +/- 0.6 vs 3.3 +/- 0.7 hours; P = 0.02) were less with the Endotak lead system. There was no perioperative mortality. During a mean follow-up of 20 +/- 4 months, there were eight instances of lead dislodgment in patients receiving the PCD system. There were four nonsudden cardiac deaths and one sudden death in the Endotak group and three nonsudden deaths in the PCD group. Sudden cardiac death and total survival using the intention-to-treat analysis during this follow-up period were 99% and 95%, respectively. In conclusion, successful implantation, perioperative mortality, and survival rate are comparable with both lead systems; however, incorporating two defibrillating electrodes in one lead minimizes lead dislodgment and reduces implant time.
Jasbir et al. (1994) conducted a cohort in Ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (n=170). CPI Endotak lead system vs. Medtronic PCD system was evaluated on Mean implant time (hours) (p=0.02). The CPI Endotak lead system reduced mean implant time (2.5 vs 3.3 hours; P=0.02) and mean defibrillation threshold (15 vs 17 J; P=0.03) compared to the Medtronic PCD system.