Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
7113518
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
No benefit of a dual coil over a single coil ICD lead: Evidence from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial
Author(s)
Aoukar, PS; Poole, JE; Johnson, GW; Anderson, J; Hellkamp, AS; Mark, DB; Lee, KL; Bardy, GH; ,
Year
2013
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
Heart Rhythm
ISSN:
1547-5271
EISSN:
1556-3871
Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Location
NEW YORK
Page Numbers
970-976
PMID
23562699
DOI
10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.03.046
Web of Science Id
WOS:000321497500006
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dual coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads with a superior vena cava (SVC) electrode have been considered standard of care despite sparse data suggesting improved ICD defibrillation efficacy. SVC coils increase lead complexity, cost, risk of lead failure, and lead removal.OBJECTIVE To compare all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death, implant defibrillation threshold (DFT) test energies, appropriate shock rates, and first shock efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias for dual coil vs single coil leads in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT).METHODS In SCD-HeFT, 811 patients with heart failure received a single lead transvenous ICD (Medtronic model 7223) and underwent protocol-driven DFT testing. The selection of a dual vs single coil right ventricular (RV) lead was at the physician's discretion. DFT data were available in 717 patients.RESULTS Dual coil leads were used in 563 and single coil in 246 patients. After 45.5-month follow-up, overall mortality was similar (19.4% for dual coil vs 21.5% for single coil; adjusted hazard ratio 0.95; 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.34; P = .78). Sudden cardiac death was also similar (3.6% for dual coil vs 3.7% for single coil; P = .96). First shock efficacy was 82.2% vs 91.9% (dual coil vs single coil; unadjusted odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.13; P = .085). Mean DFT was 12.1 +/- 4.7 J vs 12.8 +/- 4.8 J (dual coil vs single coil; P = .087).CONCLUSIONS In the SCD-HeFT, the addition of an SVC coil for left-sided implants was not associated with improved outcome measures. We advocate returning to single coil RV ICD leads as the standard of care to decrease chronic lead complications.
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity