Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023001%3A_____%2F16%3A00060004" target="_blank" >RIV/00023001:_____/16:00060004 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jce.12952/epdf" target="_blank" >http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jce.12952/epdf</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.12952" target="_blank" >10.1111/jce.12952</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?
Original language description
ICD Lead Position and Outcome. Introduction: We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position. Methods and Results: The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2,475 of 2,500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in a lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, P < 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 ohm vs. 728 ohm, P < 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70 V vs. 0.66 V, P = 0.01). Single-coil leads and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity scorematched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.66), or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% P = 0.35) according to lead location. Conclusion: We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>x</sub> - Unclassified - Peer-reviewed scientific article (Jimp, Jsc and Jost)
CEP classification
FA - Cardiovascular diseases including cardio-surgery
OECD FORD branch
—
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju
Others
Publication year
2016
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN
1045-3873
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
27
Issue of the periodical within the volume
5
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
6
Pages from-to
581-586
UT code for WoS article
000378397900011
EID of the result in the Scopus database
—