scholarly journals 96-42: Comparison of lead failure rates between DF-1 and DF-4 ICD leads in clinical practice

EP Europace ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. i71-i71
Author(s):  
Thomas Kleemann ◽  
Florian Nonnenmacher ◽  
Kleopatra Kouraki ◽  
Margit Strauss ◽  
Nicolaus Werner ◽  
...  
Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric W Black-Maier ◽  
Sean D Pokorney ◽  
Robert K Lewis ◽  
Alexander Christian ◽  
Ruth A Greenfield ◽  
...  

Introduction: Percutaneous transvenous lead extraction of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasingly common. Although ICD leads are widely considered to be more difficult to extract than pacemaker leads, there are few direct comparisons. Methods/Results: Using a cohort of 368 consecutive patients undergoing lead extraction (dwell time >1 year) between 2005-2012, we compared baseline characteristics/outcomes in extractions involving pacing versus ICD leads. We defined major adverse events (MAE) as any events/complications that required procedural intervention, transfusion, or that resulted in death or serious harm during index hospitalization. Median age was 60.6 yrs and 29.6% were women. There were 136 (37%) pacing lead extractions and 232 (63%) ICD lead extractions. Pacing leads had a longer dwell time (6.14 yrs [IQR 1.2-10.9 ] versus 4.4 yrs [IQR 1.1-6.4], p<0.001) and higher median LVEF (55% [IQR 35-55] vs. 30% [IQR 20-40], p<0.001) compared with ICD lead patients. Indications for pacing and ICD lead extractions included sepsis/endocarditis (21.3% vs. 24.6%, p=0.48), pocket infection (40.4% vs. 34.9%, p=0.29), and lead failure (15.4% vs. 38.8%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between pacing and ICD lead extractions in median fluoroscopy time (5.5 vs. 8.5 minutes, p=0.86) or femoral bailout rate (4.4% vs. 5.2%, p=0.73). There were similar rates of all-cause MAE during index hospitalization (5.1% vs. 5.6%), death (2.2% vs 3.2%) and clinical success (97.0% vs. 97.0%, p=0.55) in pacemaker and ICD extractions, respectively. Conclusions: ICD leads are more commonly extracted relative to pacemaker leads, and this difference is driven by larger numbers of lead failure within ICD leads. Despite much longer dwell times, major adverse events were similar in pacing lead cases compared with ICD extractions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. S3-S4
Author(s):  
R. Check ◽  
B. Kelly ◽  
L. Rivard ◽  
J. Pester ◽  
K. McMahon ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali A Azeem ◽  
Nauman Khalid ◽  
D Guertin ◽  
Jeffrey Kluger ◽  
Steven Zweibel ◽  
...  

Background: The Riata/Riata ST implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead series (St Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA) is vulnerable to a characteristic insulation failure mechanism which results in conductor externalization (CE). This may be visible on cinefluoroscopy, however the sensitivity of this test is unknown when compared with direct visible inspection of extracted leads. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with Riata leads extracted at our center since 01/01/2011, and compared CE on fluoroscopic imaging before extraction with the visual appearance of the extracted lead ex vivo. Cinefluoroscopy of the Riata lead was performed in three planes: posteroanterior, left and right anterior oblique. CE was defined as a conductor that had breached the outer insulation material and was clearly visible outside the lead body on fluoroscopy. Ex vivo, CE was defined as externalization of the conductor cable(s) visible on inspection of the extracted lead with a corresponding linear insulation defect. Results: Of 424 patients with Riata leads 37(8.7%) patients underwent extraction with a mean implant duration of 6.24 years ±1.9 years. The indication for extraction was infection in 12 (32.4%); 7 (18.9%) for electrical or structural lead failure and other indications in 18 (48.6%). CE was evident on cinefluoroscopy in 8 (21.6%) patients before extraction including 2 (25%) leads extracted for electrical failure. Post extraction, CE was visible in an additional 3 (8.1%) leads including 1 (33%) extracted for electrical failure. Overall sensitivity was 72.7%. Conclusions: Cinefluoroscopy has suboptimal sensitivity for detection of CE in Riata ICD leads. The absence of CE on cinefluoroscopy does not imply that the outer insulation is structurally intact. Our results suggest that routine cinefluoroscopy of Riata/Riata ST leads is of limited utility.


2013 ◽  
Vol 168 (2) ◽  
pp. 848-852 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iftikhar A. Fazal ◽  
Ewen J. Shepherd ◽  
Margaret Tynan ◽  
Christopher J. Plummer ◽  
Janet M. McComb

Author(s):  
Frederic S. Resnic ◽  
Arjun Majithia ◽  
Sanket S. Dhruva ◽  
Henry Ssemaganda ◽  
Susan Robbins ◽  
...  

Background: Several defibrillator leads have been recalled due to early lead failure leading to significant patient harm. Confirming the safety of contemporary defibrillator leads is essential to optimizing treatment for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We therefore sought to assess the comparative long-term safety of the 4 most commonly implanted ICD leads within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Methods and Results: A propensity-matched survival analysis of the ICD Registry was performed evaluating 4 contemporary ICD leads in patients receiving an ICD system for the first time. All patients in the ICD Registry aged ≥18 years who underwent an implant of an ICD between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016 were included. Monitoring of safety began with ICD implant and continued up to 5 years. A meaningful difference in ICD failure rate was defined as twice (or more) the lead failure rate observed in the propensity-matched comparator patients. Among the 374 132 patients who received a new ICD implant, no safety alerts were triggered for the primary safety end point of lead failure for any of the high energy leads studied. Estimated rates of freedom from lead failure at 5 years ranged from 97.7% to 98.9% for the 4 high-energy leads of interest. Conclusions: Though limited by incomplete long-term outcomes ascertainment, active surveillance of the ICD Registry suggests that there were no meaningful differences in the rate of ICD high-energy lead survival for the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Zappulla

Background: Small-diameter implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads have been introduced into clinical practice to facilitate the implantation procedure. Despite their expected benefits, the reliability of these leads has proven to be questionable. The main purpose of our study is to investigate the impact of ICD lead diameter (≤8 F versus >8 F) on long-term lead durability. Methods: Overall, 206 consecutive patients implanted with a right ventricular ICD lead in the Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Unit of our department from January 2008 to December 2013 were included in this analysis. ICD leads were defined, according to their diameter, as small (≤8 F) and standard (>8 F).The small-diameter leads (n=106) included Linox (Biotronik; n=58) and Durata (St. Jude Medical/Abbot; n=48). The standard-diameter ICD leads (n=100) consisted of Sprint Quattro (Medtronic; n=64) and Endotak (Boston Scientific; n=36). Results: After a median follow-up of 7.3 years, lead failure rate was significantly increased for small-diameter leads compared with standard-diameter leads (6.6% vs 1%; P=0.035). No difference in lead survival probability has been observed between Linox and Durata small-diameter leads (93% vs 92.7%; P=0.71). The majority of lead failures presented as noise (87.5%), without detectable abnormalities on fluoroscopic evaluation. Conclusion: Our single-centre study showed that both Linox and Durata small-diameter ICD are associated to be more susceptible to a greater risk of lead failure as compared to standard-diameter ICD leads. In this perspective, a comprehensive vigilance strategy including home monitoring is warranted for early detection of lead failure.


2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. P1405-P1405 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Kouraki ◽  
M. Strauss ◽  
A. Skarlos ◽  
R. Zahn ◽  
T. Kleemann

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Cairns ◽  
K Balasubramanian ◽  
E Themeles ◽  
A E Epstein ◽  
J S Healey ◽  
...  

Abstract Background High rates of ICD lead mechanical failures (insulation abrasion and conductor fracture) resulted in FDA recalls and substantial design modifications. Most subsequent reports of lead failures of newer generation leads are based upon modest-sized, retrospective cohorts with relatively brief follow-up and may be unreliable. Following lead modifications (including silicone-polyurethane copolymer insulation coating), in 2007, one manufacturer established 3 prospective registries, and engaged a university-based methods center to independently review the registries, to adjudicate all reports of lead failures and to independently analyze lead survival. Up to 11 years of follow-up is now available. Purpose To adjudicate all reports of leads inactivated because of possible mechanical failure and to independently calculate rates of mechanical failure overall and by specific type. Methods Manufacturer expert staff confirm each lead inactivation by site interrogation. Following formal algorithms which incorporate lead testing and remote monitoring, they designate all-cause mechanical failure (fracture; insulation abrasion; failure at crimp, bond or weld; or uncertain) based upon the finding of electrical noise, very low or very high or rapidly rising impedance or alternatively they designate non-mechanical dysfunction (e.g. no impedance criteria but elevated thresholds, over or under sensing). The results of returned product analyses are incorporated when available (31%). The methods center receives electronic data transfers twice yearly, reviews all documentation, adjudicates all instances of possible lead failure, assigns probable cause (by 2 electrophysiologists) and conducts independent analyses of lead survival. Results 10,866 patients (73% male, mean age 65.9 yr., LVEF 29.3%, NYHA class II or III 89%) with 11,132 leads had follow-up of 4.6 yr. (median) and 11 yr. (maximum) (Aug 31, 2018). Lead follow-up was censored at the time of lead inactivation, death/transplant or administrative withdrawal. Of leads enrolled, there were 26.6% still in follow-up and of those not the status was 7.4% inactivated, 29.5% death or transplant, 33.8% administrative withdrawal and 3.7% reason missing. Following adjudication, there were 156 all-cause mechanical failures (1.40% total, 0.29%/yr.). Rates of cause-specific mechanical failures were: fracture 1.02% total, 0.22%/yr.; insulation abrasion 0.28% total, 0.06%/yr.; miscellaneous/uncertain 0.12% total, 0.02%/yr.; and externalized conductors 0%. Life-table rates of freedom from lead failure by 11 years were: all-cause mechanical failure 95.9%, conductor fracture 97.0%, insulation abrasion 99.1%, mechanical failure other/uncertain type 99.9%, and externalized conductors 100%. Conclusions Up to 11 yr prospective follow-up of silicone-polyurethane-coated ICD leads with independent adjudication and analyses of events shows low rates of all-cause mechanical failure and no externalized conductors. Acknowledgement/Funding Abbott


EP Europace ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Vollmann ◽  
S. Woronowicz ◽  
L. Kmiec ◽  
K. Jung ◽  
D. Zenker ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document