Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?
Identifikátory výsledku
Kód výsledku v 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>
Výsledek na webu
<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>
Alternativní jazyky
Jazyk výsledku
angličtina
Název v původním jazyce
Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?
Popis výsledku v původním jazyce
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.
Název v anglickém jazyce
Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?
Popis výsledku anglicky
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.
Klasifikace
Druh
J<sub>x</sub> - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)
CEP obor
FA - Kardiovaskulární nemoci včetně kardiochirurgie
OECD FORD obor
—
Návaznosti výsledku
Projekt
—
Návaznosti
N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju
Ostatní
Rok uplatnění
2016
Kód důvěrnosti údajů
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku
Název periodika
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN
1045-3873
e-ISSN
—
Svazek periodika
27
Číslo periodika v rámci svazku
5
Stát vydavatele periodika
US - Spojené státy americké
Počet stran výsledku
6
Strana od-do
581-586
Kód UT WoS článku
000378397900011
EID výsledku v databázi Scopus
—