A multicenter, randomized trial comparing an active can implantable defibrillator with a passive can system

C. Haffajee, D. Martin, A. Bhandari, G. H. Bardy, C. DeSouza, V. Kuehlkamp, T. Church

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Scopus citations

Abstract

Replacing one defibrillation electrode lead by the defibrillator can may simplify implantation of the ICD. In this multicenter study, 304 patients were randomized to receive either the biphasic active can (AC) (model 7219C system, Medtronic, Inc.) or the passive can (PC) (model 7219D system). The AC and PC systems were compared with respect to their ability to meet the implant defibrillation criterion and to defibrillate VF, and to DFTs, implant time, patient adverse events, and survival rates. A higher percentage fulfilled the implant defibrillation criterion on the first configuration with the AC (86.3% vs 75.9% for PC; P = 0.023), and the first shock success for terminating induced VF was 94% for AC compared to 80% for PC (P = 0.026). DFTs were significantly lower (10.9 vs 12.7 J; P = 0.031), and implant time was significantly shorter for the A C patients (99.2 vs 112.0 min; P = 0.002). The two groups showed no significant differences in 3-month adverse event rates, 3-month survival, and hospital stay.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-219
Number of pages5
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume20
Issue number1 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 8 1997

Keywords

  • active can defibrillator
  • implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A multicenter, randomized trial comparing an active can implantable defibrillator with a passive can system'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this