Abstract 14091: Outcomes of Patients With Recalled Defibrillator Leads: Results From the NCDR-ICD Registry

Introduction: Whether to reuse, abandon, or extract functioning, recalled ICD leads at the time of generator replacement is an area of uncertainty as lead failure is more common following generator replacement, and long term failure rates of recalled ICD leads are unknown. We sought to evaluate outcomes following various lead management strategies at the time of generator replacement. Hypothesis: Functional St. Jude Riata and Medtronic Sprint Fidelis leads at the time of elective generator replacement are more frequently reused than replaced, and extracting them poses significant procedural risk. Methods: We queried the NCDR ICD Registry for Medicare patients undergoing elective generator replacement with a normal Fidelis or Riata lead from 2010-2016 and categorized patients based on the fate of the recalled lead: reused, abandoned, or extracted. We report pre-discharge complications by group. Results: There were 9937 generator replacement patients between 2010-2016 with a functioning Riata or Fidelis lead in which lead management was reported. The lead was reused in 9806 (98%) patients, extracted in 55 (0.6%), and abandoned in 76 (0.8%). Compared with the reused group, extracted patients were >10 years younger, had less heart failure and fewer comorbidities. In-hospital death occurred in 4 (7.3%) patients in the extracted group and 7 (0.07%) in the reused group (P<0.0001). The combination of death or any pre-discharge event occurred in 11% of extracted patients compared with 0.3% and 0% in the reused and abandoned groups, respectively.(Table) Conclusions: At the time of generator replacement, a small percentage of functional Riata and Fidelis leads were extracted. Even in this highly selected extraction population, extraction posed significant risk of in-hospital mortality and severe complications. Future work will help clarify whether these peri-procedural risks may be justified by improved medium and long term outcomes.

High shocking and pacing impedances due to defibrillation lead calcification

Purpose We have reported the calcification of Endotak defibrillation leads that required replacement. The aim of this study was to assess calcified Endotak Reliance leads in the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database and compare them to calcified Sprint Fidelis, Sprint Quattro Secure, Riata, and Durata leads in MAUDE. Methods We searched the MAUDE database from 2008 to 2019 for defibrillation lead calcification using the terms “calcium,” “calcification,” and “calcified”. Included were explanted leads whose manufacturers found calcium on the shocking and/or pacing electrode. Results The MAUDE search identified 113 calcified defibrillation leads that qualified for the study, including 109 Endotak Reliance leads, 1 Sprint Quattro Secure lead, 2 Durata leads, 1 Riata ST lead, and no Sprint Fidelis lead. The sign of calcification was a gradual increase in shocking or pacing impedance. Average implant time was 7.4 ± 3.1 (range: 1.3–16.5) years. Only Endotak Reliance leads had shocking coil calcification (n = 72; 66.0%) and five (6.9%) of these failed defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing. Distal pacing electrode calcification affected 55 (50.4%) Endotak Reliance leads. The four other leads had pacing ring electrode calcification only. Conclusion Endotak Reliance defibrillation leads appear prone to shocking coil and/or distal pacing electrode calcification. High impedances may compromise defibrillation and pacing therapy. Patients who have these leads should be monitored; those exhibiting high shocking impedances should be considered for DFT testing. Lead replacement should be considered for pacemaker-dependent patients whose leads exhibit progressively high impedances.