Literature DB >> 18452862

Outcome of the Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead advisory: a report from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee.

Andrew D Krahn1, Jean Champagne, Jeffrey S Healey, Doug Cameron, Christopher S Simpson, Bernard Thibault, Iqwal Mangat, Stanley Tung, Laurence Sterns, David H Birnie, Derek V Exner, Ratika Parkash, Soori Sivakumaran, Ted Davies, Benoit Coutu, Eugene Crystal, Kevin Wolfe, Atul Verma, Elizabeth A Stephenson, Shubhayan Sanatani, Robert Gow, Sean Connors, Felix Ayala Paredes, Vidal Essebag.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis family of leads has recently been the subject of a widespread advisory. Lead failure rates are estimated at 2.3% at 30 months, 2.6 times the failure rate of the reference Medtronic 6947 lead.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to contact pediatric and adult implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant centers across Canada to determine the short-term response to the October 15, 2007 Medtronic Fidelis lead advisory.
METHODS: All centers completed an 11-part survey to assess the frequency and presentation of lead failure, operator characteristics, and center's response.
RESULTS: Lead failure was noted in 80 (1.29%) of 6,181 patients at 21.0 months, with inappropriate shocks experienced in 45 (56%) of the 80 patients (overall risk 0.73%). No deaths were attributed to lead failure. Sensing was the primary form of failure, seen in 60 leads (75%), with pacing failure in 10 (13%), and high-voltage failure in 15 (19%). Assessment of the previous routine ICD interrogation prior to the advisory or lead failure demonstrated evidence of altered lead performance in only 8 (10%) of the 80 leads. Inappropriate shocks typically were multiple (median 7, range 1-122), with a single shock seen in only 5 patients. Lead failure was noted in 18 of 23 centers, representing 89.8% of leads implanted, with at least one failure noted in 15 of 16 centers that implanted more than 200 leads. Forty-seven of the 135 operators in the 23 institutions implanted the 80 leads that subsequently failed. Only 16 operators were involved in more than a single lead that subsequently failed; seven operators participated in three or more leads that subsequently failed. Seven centers planned to replace leads in most pacing-dependent patients, and two centers planned to replace leads in patients unable to hear the alert tone.
CONCLUSION: This national experience suggests a Fidelis lead failure rate of 1.29% at 21 months, most often presenting with multiple inappropriate shocks without evidence of impending failure from routine lead follow-up. Lead failure did not appear to cluster around specific operators or around high-volume or low-volume implant centers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18452862     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2008.01.029

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


  9 in total

Review 1.  Strategic choices to reduce implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related morbidity.

Authors:  Oussama Wazni; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  Characteristics of Sprint Fidelis lead failure.

Authors:  R J Beukema; A R Ramdat Misier; P P H M Delnoy; J J J Smit; A Elvan
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.380

3.  The Sprint Fidelis lead fracture story: time to come to our senses?

Authors:  P F H M van Dessel
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 4.  Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction.

Authors:  Oussama Wazni; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 32.419

5.  Natural history of the Sprint Fidelis lead: survival analysis from a large single-center study.

Authors:  Leonidas Tzogias; Diego Bellavia; Shivi Sharma; Thomas J Donohue; Mark H Schoenfeld
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Formation of a national network for rapid response to device and lead advisories: The Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee.

Authors:  Andrew D Krahn; Christopher S Simpson; Ratika Parkash; Raymond Yee; Jean Champagne; Jeffrey S Healey; Doug Cameron; Bernard Thibault; Iqwal Mangat; Stanley Tung; Laurence Sterns; David H Birnie; Derek V Exner; Soori Sivakumaran; Ted Davies; Benoit Coutu; Eugene Crystal; Kevin Wolfe; Atul Verma; Elizabeth A Stephenson; Shubhayan Sanatani; Robert Gow; Sean Connors; Felix Ayala Paredes; Mike Turabian; Teresa Kus; Vidal Essebag; Martin Gardner
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 5.223

7.  Can we predict and prevent adverse events related to high-voltage implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure?

Authors:  Renato Pietro Ricci; Carlo Pignalberi; Barbara Magris; Stefano Aquilani; Vito Altamura; Loredana Morichelli; Antonio Porfili; Laura Quarta; Fabio Saputo; Massimo Santini
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Extraction of defibrillator leads recalled for cable externalization and failure.

Authors:  Divyang Patel; Evan Adelstein; Jan Nemec; G Stuart Mendenhall; Raveen Bazaz; Sandeep Jain; Samir Saba
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Managing patients with advisory defibrillator leads: what can we learn from published data?

Authors:  F A Bracke; B M van Gelder
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.380

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.