Literature DB >> 23562699

No benefit of a dual coil over a single coil ICD lead: evidence from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial.

Pierre S Aoukar1, Jeanne E Poole, George W Johnson, Jill Anderson, Anne S Hellkamp, Daniel B Mark, Kerry L Lee, Gust H Bardy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dual coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads with a superior vena cava (SVC) electrode have been considered standard of care despite sparse data suggesting improved ICD defibrillation efficacy. SVC coils increase lead complexity, cost, risk of lead failure, and lead removal.
OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death, implant defibrillation threshold (DFT) test energies, appropriate shock rates, and first shock efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias for dual coil vs single coil leads in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT).
METHODS: In SCD-HeFT, 811 patients with heart failure received a single lead transvenous ICD (Medtronic model 7223) and underwent protocol-driven DFT testing. The selection of a dual vs single coil right ventricular (RV) lead was at the physician's discretion. DFT data were available in 717 patients.
RESULTS: Dual coil leads were used in 563 and single coil in 246 patients. After 45.5-month follow-up, overall mortality was similar (19.4% for dual coil vs 21.5% for single coil; adjusted hazard ratio 0.95; 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.34; P = .78). Sudden cardiac death was also similar (3.6% for dual coil vs 3.7% for single coil; P = .96). First shock efficacy was 82.2% vs 91.9% (dual coil vs single coil; unadjusted odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.13; P = .085). Mean DFT was 12.1 ± 4.7 J vs 12.8 ± 4.8 J (dual coil vs single coil; P = .087).
CONCLUSIONS: In the SCD-HeFT, the addition of an SVC coil for left-sided implants was not associated with improved outcome measures. We advocate returning to single coil RV ICD leads as the standard of care to decrease chronic lead complications.
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23562699     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.03.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  15 in total

1.  [Annual report 2013 of the German Cardiac Pacemaker And Defibrillator Register--Part 2: implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Pacemaker and AQUA Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care GmbH workgroup].

Authors:  A Markewitz
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2015-12

2.  [Lead survival and complications (except infections). Are we doing better nowadays?].

Authors:  Martin Seifert; Michael Neuss; Maren Schöpp; Cornel Koban; Christian Butter
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2013-08-06

3. 

Authors:  A Markewitz
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2017-03

4.  ICD lead type and RV lead position in CRT-D recipients.

Authors:  Alexander P Benz; Mate Vamos; Julia W Erath; Peter Bogyi; Gabor Z Duray; Stefan H Hohnloser
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 5.460

5.  [Annual Report 2012 of the German Heart pacemaker defibrillator round register: Section on pacemaker and AQUA Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care GmbH].

Authors:  A Markewitz
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2014-12

Review 6.  [Annual report 2015 of the German cardiac pacemaker and defibrillator register-Part 2: implantable cardioverter-defibrillators : Cardiac pacemaker working group at the IQTIG - Institute for quality assurance and transparency in health care].

Authors:  A Markewitz
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2018-03

Review 7.  The Saga of Defibrillation Testing: When Less Is More.

Authors:  Marye J Gleva; Melissa Robinson; Jeanne Poole
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.931

8.  Multicentre comparison Of shock efficacy using single-vs. Dual-coil lead systems and Anodal vs. cathodaL polarITY defibrillation in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. The MODALITY study.

Authors:  Maria Stella Baccillieri; Gianni Gasparini; Luca Benacchio; Alessandro Zorzi; Elena Marras; Francesca Zerbo; Luca Tomasi; Diego Vaccari; Gianni Pastore; Carlo Bonanno; Giulio Molon; Gabriele Zanotto; Antonio Fusco; Massimo Carasi; Andrea Zorzi; Vittorio Calzolari; Barbara Ignatiuk; Sergio Cannas; Alessandro Vaglio; Muhamad Al Bunni; Antonella Pedrini; Armando Olivieri; Roberta Rampazzo; Nadia Minicuci; Domenico Corrado; Roberto Verlato
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry.

Authors:  Eran Leshem; Mahmoud Suleiman; Avishag Laish-Farkash; Yuval Konstantino; Michael Glikson; Alon Barsheshet; Ilan Goldenberg; Yoav Michowitz
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 5.214

10.  Intra-operative defibrillation testing and clinical shock efficacy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the NORDIC ICD randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Dietmar Bänsch; Hendrik Bonnemeier; Johan Brandt; Frank Bode; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Miloš Táborský; Stefan Kuster; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Angelika Felk; Tino Hauser; Anna Suling; Karl Wegscheider
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.