Comparative efficacy of single-coil versus dual-coil ICD leads: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

IF 1.6 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS

Future cardiology Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1080/14796678.2025.2459542

Muhammad Hamza Shuja, Syed Hasan Shuja, Fabeeha Shaheen, Ramish Hannat, Firzah Shakil, Abeera Farooq Abbasi, Minal Hasan

{"title":"Comparative efficacy of single-coil versus dual-coil ICD leads: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.","authors":"Muhammad Hamza Shuja, Syed Hasan Shuja, Fabeeha Shaheen, Ramish Hannat, Firzah Shakil, Abeera Farooq Abbasi, Minal Hasan","doi":"10.1080/14796678.2025.2459542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are essential for reducing sudden cardiac death in patients at risk of ventricular arrhythmias. The choice of ICD lead - single-coil or dual-coil - can influence device performance and patient outcomes. This meta-analysis evaluates the comparative efficacy and safety of single-coil versus dual-coil ICD leads to inform clinical decision-making.Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed up to October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single-coil and dual-coil ICD leads were included. Outcomes assessed included defibrillation threshold (DFT), first-shock efficacy, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, shock impedance, and peak current.Results: Seven RCTs involving 1,614 patients were analyzed. Single-coil leads demonstrated superior first-shock efficacy (OR: 1.60; p = 0.05), reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.63; p = 0.02), and better peak current (MD: -2.29; p = 0.02). DFT and cardiovascular mortality were comparable between groups, while dual-coil leads exhibited lower shock impedance (MD: 18.26; p < 0.00001).Conclusions: Single-coil ICD leads are associated with improved first-shock efficacy and reduced all-cause mortality, suggesting their potential superiority in certain patient populations. Further research is warranted to refine lead selection criteria.","PeriodicalId":12589,"journal":{"name":"Future cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796678.2025.2459542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are essential for reducing sudden cardiac death in patients at risk of ventricular arrhythmias. The choice of ICD lead - single-coil or dual-coil - can influence device performance and patient outcomes. This meta-analysis evaluates the comparative efficacy and safety of single-coil versus dual-coil ICD leads to inform clinical decision-making.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed up to October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single-coil and dual-coil ICD leads were included. Outcomes assessed included defibrillation threshold (DFT), first-shock efficacy, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, shock impedance, and peak current.

Results: Seven RCTs involving 1,614 patients were analyzed. Single-coil leads demonstrated superior first-shock efficacy (OR: 1.60; p = 0.05), reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.63; p = 0.02), and better peak current (MD: -2.29; p = 0.02). DFT and cardiovascular mortality were comparable between groups, while dual-coil leads exhibited lower shock impedance (MD: 18.26; p < 0.00001).

Conclusions: Single-coil ICD leads are associated with improved first-shock efficacy and reduced all-cause mortality, suggesting their potential superiority in certain patient populations. Further research is warranted to refine lead selection criteria.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Future cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

5.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Research advances have contributed to improved outcomes across all specialties, but the rate of advancement in cardiology has been exceptional. Concurrently, the population of patients with cardiac conditions continues to grow and greater public awareness has increased patients" expectations of new drugs and devices. Future Cardiology (ISSN 1479-6678) reflects this new era of cardiology and highlights the new molecular approach to advancing cardiovascular therapy. Coverage will also reflect the major technological advances in bioengineering in cardiology in terms of advanced and robust devices, miniaturization, imaging, system modeling and information management issues.