Literature DB >> 17275749

Clinical experience with pacemaker pulse generators and transvenous leads: an 8-year prospective multicenter study.

Robert G Hauser1, David L Hayes, Linda M Kallinen, David S Cannom, Andrew E Epstein, Adrian K Almquist, Susan L Song, G Frank O Tyers, Stephen C Vlay, Marleen Irwin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pacemakers have improved the lives of patients worldwide. Unfortunately, the medical community has had little independent information regarding the performance of these vital medical devices.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the reasons pacemaker pulse generators and transvenous leads were removed from service. We evaluated the causes and major adverse clinical events associated with device end-of-service life behavior and how they were detected and managed.
METHODS: Pulse generator and lead data were entered prospectively using a web-based format. Normal battery depletion was signified by the elective replacement indicator appearing >3 years after implant. Lead failure was a device defect causing pacing, sensing, or fixation malfunction, high threshold, or abnormal impedance. Major adverse clinical events were death, angina, heart failure, syncope, and perioperative surgical complications.
RESULTS: From 1998 to 2006, 2,652 pulse generator and 615 leads were removed from service. The average pulse generator was implanted for 7.3 +/- 3.1 years (range <1 day to 26 years). The majority of pulse generators (n = 2,317 [87%]) were replaced for normal battery depletion. Severe and accelerated battery depletion, manufacturers' advisories, and electronic or connector defects accounted for 13% of pulse generator removals. The proportion of pulse generators removed from service as a result of manufacturers' advisories, electronic failure, and housing defects were 4%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. Models with rate response capability had shorter battery longevities than those without rate response capability. Major adverse clinical events due to pulse generator end-of-service life behavior were related to electronic and connector defects, and both normal and severe battery depletion. Median time to lead failure was 7.2 +/- 5.2 years. Insulation defects caused the majority of lead failures, and most of these leads used polyurethane materials. Lead failure was associated with a 16% incidence of major adverse clinical events. No major adverse clinical events occurred when impending lead failure was detected at routine follow-up. Lead extraction was associated with a 5.6% complication rate, including one death.
CONCLUSION: Overall pulse generator performance was satisfactory. Differences in battery longevity were observed among models. In some patients, elective replacement indicators signifying normal battery depletion resulted in major adverse clinical events. Pacemaker follow-up effectively identified pulse generator end-of-service life and often detected impending lead failure, thus avoiding major adverse clinical events. Long-term studies are needed to assess chronic lead performance so that appropriate clinical management strategies, including recommendations for lead extraction, can be developed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17275749     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.10.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  20 in total

Review 1.  [What must intensive care physicians know about implantable cardioverter defibrillator?].

Authors:  E Gatterer
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 2.  [Fitness to drive in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices].

Authors:  Dejan Mijic; Bernd Lemke; Harilaos Bogossian
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2019-05-09

Review 3.  Next-generation pacemakers: from small devices to biological pacemakers.

Authors:  Eugenio Cingolani; Joshua I Goldhaber; Eduardo Marbán
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 32.419

4.  Minimally Invasive Implantation of a Micropacemaker Into the Pericardial Space.

Authors:  Yaniv Bar-Cohen; Michael J Silka; Allison C Hill; Jay D Pruetz; Ramen H Chmait; Li Zhou; Sara M Rabin; Viktoria Norekyan; Gerald E Loeb
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-07

5.  Impact of right ventricular pacing site on the subcutaneous ICD sensing-a step towards personalised device therapy?

Authors:  Mohamed ElRefai; Mohamed Abouelasaad; Christina Menexi; John Morgan; Paul R Roberts
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 6.  Leadless Cardiac Pacemakers: Pacing Paradigm Change.

Authors:  Petr Neuzil; Vivek Y Reddy
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Optogenetics' promise: pacing and cardioversion by light?

Authors:  Christina M Ambrosi; Emilia Entcheva
Journal:  Future Cardiol       Date:  2014-01

8.  Cell and gene therapy for arrhythmias: Repair of cardiac conduction damage.

Authors:  Yong-Fu Xiao
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.327

9.  Early performance of a miniaturized leadless cardiac pacemaker: the Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study.

Authors:  Philippe Ritter; Gabor Z Duray; Clemens Steinwender; Kyoko Soejima; Razali Omar; Lluís Mont; Lucas V A Boersma; Reinoud E Knops; Larry Chinitz; Shu Zhang; Calambur Narasimhan; John Hummel; Michael Lloyd; Timothy Alexander Simmers; Andrew Voigt; Verla Laager; Kurt Stromberg; Matthew D Bonner; Todd J Sheldon; Dwight Reynolds
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 10.  Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Permanent Pacemakers: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2018-10-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.