scholarly journals Active Surveillance of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry for Defibrillator Lead Failures

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.

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. PE4_089
Author(s):  
Masaya Watanabe ◽  
Hisashi Yokoshiki ◽  
Hirofumi Mitsuyama ◽  
Yoshiro Matsui ◽  
Hiroyuki Tsutsui

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 3133-3135
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Boriani ◽  
Lucia D’Angiolella ◽  
Fabiana Madotto

Diagnostic and prognostic improvements in electrophysiology have been spectacular and mainly been attributable to the development of implantable cardiac devices, such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (CRT-Ps), and resynchronization therapy pacemakers with defibrillation therapy (CRT-D). These therapies are expensive because of both up-front initial implant costs and for subsequent check-up, device replacement, and possible complications. As this is a typical case in which a therapy is both costly and effective, assessment of cost-effectiveness of these device therapies becomes of paramount importance. According to recent studies, these treatments are broadly cost-effective when applied adequately and correctly analysed over a long-term period. The up-front initial cost of the devices and their implant are sometimes short-term barriers to the implementation of cost-effective therapeutic strategies.


2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-51
Author(s):  
Wilbert S. Aronow ◽  
Carmine Sorbera ◽  
Anil Chagarlamudi ◽  
Hassan Tabandeh ◽  
Shalini Gupta ◽  
...  

EP Europace ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. B179-B180
Author(s):  
M. Meine ◽  
M. Muller ◽  
P. Weismuller ◽  
H.J. Trappe

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 205566831774549 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Badger ◽  
Paul Taylor ◽  
Ian Swain

Introduction A number of patients are excluded from electrical stimulation treatment because there is concern that electrical stimulation could cause electromagnetic interference with pacemakers and implanted cardioverter defibrillators. The decision to use electrical stimulation in these patients needs to be supported by an assessment of benefit and harm. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the risk of electromagnetic interference between electrical stimulation and pacemakers or implanted cardioverter defibrillators. We included the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE in the time period between 1966 and 26 August 2016. Results 18 papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria (eight safety studies and ten case studies). Although we were unable to accurately estimate the risk of electromagnetic interference, the studies revealed that patients having electrical stimulation of the lower limb are less susceptible to electromagnetic interference. Conclusions The results suggest that electrical stimulation could be used safely to help drop foot in patients with pacemakers or implanted cardioverter defibrillators. However, in order to obtain an accurate estimate of the risk of electromagnetic interference, a large, long-term, and intervention-specific safety study is required. Until such a study is undertaken, electrical stimulation should be used with caution in patients with pacemakers and implanted cardioverter defibrillators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document