Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
51 Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a meta-analysis
by
Scott, Paul
, Sunderland, Nicholas
, Murgatroyd, Francis
, Kaura, Amit
, Dhillon, Para
2017
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
51 Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a meta-analysis
by
Scott, Paul
, Sunderland, Nicholas
, Murgatroyd, Francis
, Kaura, Amit
, Dhillon, Para
2017
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
51 Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a meta-analysis
Journal Article
51 Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a meta-analysis
2017
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
AimsDual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads have traditionally been used over single-coil leads due to concerns regarding high defibrillation thresholds (DFT) and consequent poor shock efficacy. However, accumulating evidence suggests that this position may be unfounded and that dual-coil leads may also be associated with higher complication rates during lead extraction. This meta-analysis collates data comparing dual- and single-coil ICD leads.Methods and resultsElectronic databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomised studies comparing single-coil and dual-coil leads. The mean differences in DFT and summary estimates of the odds-ratio (OR) for first-shock efficacy and the hazard-ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality were calculated using random effects models. Eighteen studies including a total of 1 38 124 patients were identified. Dual-coil leads were associated with a lower DFT compared to single coil leads (mean difference –0.83J; 95% confidence interval [CI] –1.39–−0.27; p=0.004). There was no difference in the first-shock success rate with dual-coil compared to single-coil leads (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.45–1.21; p=0.22). There was a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality associated with single-coil leads (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.86–0.95; p<0.0001).ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that single-coil leads have a marginally higher DFT but that this may be clinically insignificant as there appears to be no difference in first-shock efficacy when compared to dual-coil leads. The mortality benefit with single-coil leads most likely represents patient selection bias. Given the increased risk and complexity of extracting dual-coil leads, centres should strongly consider single-coil ICD leads as the lead of choice for routine new left-sided ICD implants.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks
Related Items
Related Items
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.