Suppr超能文献

右室中隔与心尖部植入除颤器导联的随机研究:SEPTAL 研究。

A randomized study of defibrillator lead implantations in the right ventricular mid-septum versus the apex: the SEPTAL study.

机构信息

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012 Aug;23(8):853-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2012.02311.x. Epub 2012 Mar 27.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and performance of right ventricular (RV) mid-septal versus apical implantable defibrillator (ICD) lead placement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SEPTAL is a randomized, noninferiority trial, which randomly assigned patients to implantation of ICD leads in the RV mid-septum versus apex, with a primary objective of comparing the implant success rate of implant at each site, based on strict electrical predefined criteria. We also compared the (1) pacing lead characteristics, (2) rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies, and (3) all-cause mortality between the 2 sites at 1 year. The trial enrolled 215 patients (mean age = 59.7 ± 12.4 years, mean LVEF = 34.0 ± 14.2%, 84.2% men), of whom 148 (68.8%) presented with ischemic heart disease. The ICD indication was primary prevention in 117 patients (54.4%). The lead was successfully implanted in 96/107 patients (89.7%) assigned to the RV mid-septum, and in 99/108 (91.7%) assigned to the apex (ns). The 1-year rate of lead-related adverse events was similar in both groups. A total of 8 first inappropriate ICD therapies (7.9%) were delivered in the RV mid-septal group, versus 8 (7.8%) in the apical group (ns), while first appropriate therapies were delivered to 22 (21.4%) and 24 patients (23.8%), respectively (ns). All-cause mortality was 7.9% in the RV mid-septal versus 2.9% in the RV apical group (ns).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the technical feasibility and noninferior performance of ICD leads implanted in the RV mid-septum versus the apex.

摘要

简介

本研究旨在评估右心室(RV)中隔与心尖部位植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)导联的可行性和性能。

方法与结果

SEPTAL 是一项随机、非劣效性试验,将患者随机分为 RV 中隔与心尖部位 ICD 导联植入组,主要目的是根据严格的电预设标准比较两个部位的植入成功率。我们还比较了(1)起搏导联特征,(2)合适和不合适 ICD 治疗的发生率,以及(3)两个部位在 1 年时的全因死亡率。该试验共纳入 215 例患者(平均年龄=59.7±12.4 岁,平均 LVEF=34.0±14.2%,84.2%为男性),其中 148 例(68.8%)患有缺血性心脏病。117 例患者(54.4%)的 ICD 适应证为一级预防。107 例患者(96.0%)的导联成功植入 RV 中隔,108 例患者(91.7%)的导联成功植入心尖(无统计学差异)。两组的 1 年导联相关不良事件发生率相似。RV 中隔组发生 8 例首次不适当 ICD 治疗(7.9%),心尖组发生 8 例(7.8%)(无统计学差异),而首次适当治疗分别为 22 例(21.4%)和 24 例(23.8%)(无统计学差异)。RV 中隔组的全因死亡率为 7.9%,RV 心尖组为 2.9%(无统计学差异)。

结论

本研究证实了 RV 中隔与心尖部位植入 ICD 导联在技术上的可行性和非劣效性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验