A MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING AN ACTIVE CAN IMPLANTABLE DEFIBRILLATOR WITH A PASSIVE CAN SYSTEM

Replacing one defibrillation electrode lead by the defibrillator can m ay simplify implantation of the ICD, In this multicenter study, 304 pa tients were randomized to receive either the biphasic active can (AC) (model 7219C system, Medtronic, Inc.) or the passive can (PC) (model 7 219D system). The AC and PC systems were compared with respect to thei r ability to meet the implant defibrillation criterion and to defibril late VF, and to DFTs, implant time, patient adverse events, and surviv al rates. A higher percentage fulfilled the implant defibrillation cri terion 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 9 4% for AC compared to 89% for PC (P=0.026). DFTs were significantly lo wer (10.9 vs 12.7 J; P=0.031), and implant time was significantly shor ter for the AC patients (99.2 vs 112.0 min; P=0.002). The two groups s howed no significant differences in 3-month adverse event rates, 3-mon th survival, and hospital stay.