Related Experiment Videos
Clinical results with nonthoracotomy ICD systems
R G Hauser1, D T Kurschinski, K McVeigh
1Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota.
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology : PACE
|January 1, 1993
Summary
Endocardial leads show comparable performance to epicardial leads in cardiac device implantation. Both systems effectively detect and convert arrhythmias with high survival rates.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Biomedical Engineering
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Epicardial leads have been a standard in cardiac device implantation.
- Endocardial leads offer a less invasive alternative.
- Comparative data on their long-term performance is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the performance of endocardial and epicardial leads.
- To evaluate patient demographics, lead characteristics, and clinical outcomes.
- To assess long-term survival in patients receiving either lead type.
Main Methods:
- Comparison of two US Food and Drug Administration clinical trials.
- Analysis of patient demographics, arrhythmia detection, and conversion rates.
- Evaluation of surgical mortality, infection rates, and long-term survival.
Main Results:
- No significant differences were found in arrhythmia detection or conversion efficacy.
- Endocardial leads showed lower rates of surgical mortality and complications, though not statistically significant.
- Both lead types demonstrated uniformly high survival rates at 1 year.
Conclusions:
- Endocardial lead systems demonstrate comparable performance to epicardial leads.
- Endocardial leads may offer a favorable safety profile.
- These findings support the use of endocardial leads in similar patient populations.