View clinical trials related to Defibrillators.
Filter by:Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) implants are limited by availability and costs of field clinical specialist (FCS) bioengineers. This study explores feasibility of remotely supported implantations through an internet based platform, aiming at enhancing efficiency and overcoming geographical or pandemic related barriers. The first phase of the study included programming and phantom assessments in 20 cases followed by 10 remote guided CRT-D and ICD implantations in additional heart failure patients, compared to 20 procedures with FCS on site. Data analysis revealed no significant differences in acute outcomes or electronic parameters at one year follow-up compared to on-site FCS. Finally, this study demonstrates the safety after testing at one year of follow-up.
This study investigates the impact and safety of wireless monitoring on the prognosis of heart failure patients with implanted pacemakers and defibrillators. It aims to examine the frequency of unplanned early hospital visits and the early diagnosis/intervention of disease exacerbation based on the presence or absence of wireless monitoring. Additionally, the study analyzes the influence of wireless monitoring on the patient's disease progression as well as satisfaction of the study participants.
This clinical trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of axillary versus cephalic venous access in the pacemakers and defibrillators implantation. Half of participants will receive the implant via fluoroscopy guided axillary venous access and the other half will receive the implant via improved cephalic venous access.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that leads to increased risk of heart failure, hospitalization, thromboembolic events, and death. Restoration of normal heart rhythm is performed in many patients with AF to improve symptoms. In this study, the investigators will consider patients who fail 2 or more trials of DC cardioversion as having refractory AF. The aim of this study is to assess whether the use of double sequential defibrillation in patients with refractory AF has a higher success rate in reverting them to a normal heart rhythm than a third cardioversion. This is a phase III, randomized controlled, single-centered, superiority trial. All patients with AF admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU) for DC cardioversion, and refractory to at least two trials of DC cardioversion will be enrolled. Patients are randomized into two arms: the first will receive a third trial of DC cardioversion (standard of care) and the second will receive double sequential external defibrillation. The resolution of AF by reverting back to normal sinus rhythm is the primary outcome of the investigators. This will be determined using EKG (electrocardiogram) immediately after DC cardioversion or double sequential defibrillation.
All patients having an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implanted and having follow-up at the Cantonal Hospital Lucerne (LUKS), the investigator center, are included in this retrospective ICD lead registry from 2006 onwards. Data is collected prospectively from december 2016 onwards. After certain ICD-leads tended to fail early the investigators aimed for a registry monitoring our patient population with defibrillator leads and evaluating their long-term performance.
Describe the mutual influences between trainings realized in implantation centers, medico-technical knowledges, technical implementation, perception, fears and appreciation felt by the patients during Home Monitoring implementation.
Identifying & optimizing strategies to reduce the burden of heart failure is vital. Despite advances in pharmacotherapy, patients with heart failure are at high risk for death & hospitalization. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) synchronizes ventricular mechanical activity, improves cardiac output & reduces HF symptoms. However, ~50% of patients do not clearly respond to CRT. Sub-optimal placement of the LV pacing lead appears to be an important reason for non-response. This study will assess whether targeted LV lead placement will result in an increased probability of CRT response at 52 weeks vs. usual (lateral wall) lead placement.