1
|
Neuzner J, Hohnloser SH, Kutyifa V, Glikson M, Dietze T, Mabo P, Vinolas X, Kautzner J, O'Hara G, Lawo T, Brachmann J, VanErven L, Gadler F, Appl U, Wang J, Connolly SJ, Healey JS. Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2019; 30:1078-1085. [PMID: 30945798 DOI: 10.1111/jce.13943] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2019] [Revised: 03/08/2019] [Accepted: 04/01/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates. METHODS AND RESULTS In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates. CONCLUSION In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stefan H Hohnloser
- Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Valentina Kutyifa
- Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.,University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Michael Glikson
- Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
| | | | | | | | - Josef Kautzner
- Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Gilles O'Hara
- Institute Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de, Quebec, QC, Canada
| | - Thomas Lawo
- Elisabeth Krankenhaus, Recklinghausen, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Ursula Appl
- Boston Scientific, Minneapolis, Minnesota.,Boston Scientific, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jia Wang
- Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Canada
| | | | - Jeff S Healey
- Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Canada.,Mc Master University, Hamilton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|