BACKGROUND: Defibrillator implanters have adopted different approaches to managing failures of multicomponent implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads. Although recent publications identified single-component failures as common mechanisms of failure, there are no published data regarding how best to manage these failures. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted to identify current management strategies. Questions were asked regarding isolated failure of a high-voltage coil or of a pace/sense electrode, in order to identify the frequency of various techniques to correct these failures. RESULTS: A worldwide query collected strategies from 376 physicians identifying themselves as ICD-implanting physicians. Replies came from 28 countries, with the USA accounting for 83.2%. The survey was completed by 85.6% of respondents. Implant experience was >10 years for 61.1%, 3-10 years for 29.1%, and <3 years for 10.4%. When the right ventricular coil failed, 52% abandoned and 48% explanted the failed lead. In superior vena cava coil failure, 61.2% chose to simply exclude this coil, using the other intact lead components. For pace/sense defects, 53.1% chose to implant a new pace/sense lead or switch sensing electrodes, using the intact lead components. Medical literature (76.1%), personal experience (67.6%), and professional guidelines (63.7%) were strong decision-making influences. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Management decisions for single-component failures of ICD leads are complex; (2) Significant differences in management strategy exist among physicians; (3) Medical literature and professional guidelines are strong influences for these decisions; (4) A lead failure registry could help identify reasons for such differences and help guide management.
BACKGROUND: Defibrillator implanters have adopted different approaches to managing failures of multicomponent implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads. Although recent publications identified single-component failures as common mechanisms of failure, there are no published data regarding how best to manage these failures. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted to identify current management strategies. Questions were asked regarding isolated failure of a high-voltage coil or of a pace/sense electrode, in order to identify the frequency of various techniques to correct these failures. RESULTS: A worldwide query collected strategies from 376 physicians identifying themselves as ICD-implanting physicians. Replies came from 28 countries, with the USA accounting for 83.2%. The survey was completed by 85.6% of respondents. Implant experience was >10 years for 61.1%, 3-10 years for 29.1%, and <3 years for 10.4%. When the right ventricular coil failed, 52% abandoned and 48% explanted the failed lead. In superior vena cava coil failure, 61.2% chose to simply exclude this coil, using the other intact lead components. For pace/sense defects, 53.1% chose to implant a new pace/sense lead or switch sensing electrodes, using the intact lead components. Medical literature (76.1%), personal experience (67.6%), and professional guidelines (63.7%) were strong decision-making influences. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Management decisions for single-component failures of ICD leads are complex; (2) Significant differences in management strategy exist among physicians; (3) Medical literature and professional guidelines are strong influences for these decisions; (4) A lead failure registry could help identify reasons for such differences and help guide management.