Literature DB >> 20111638

Characteristics of Sprint Fidelis lead failure.

R J Beukema1, A R Ramdat Misier, P P H M Delnoy, J J J Smit, A Elvan.   

Abstract

Background. The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis ICD lead is prone to failure and the rate of failure seems to be increasing. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of Sprint Fidelis lead failure, the characteristics, the mode of presentation and possible predictors of lead failure.Methods and Results. The rate, characteristics and presentation of Sprint Fidelis lead failure was assessed in this single-centre survey. 619 Sprint Fidelis ICD leads were implanted at our centre between December 2004 and August 2007. The mean follow-up was 32+/-10 (range 22-60) months; 35 patients (5.7%) required a lead re-implantation because of failure of the pace-sense conductor. Mean duration of lead survival was 23+/-12 (2-46) months and the rate of failure did not stabilise during follow-up. The mode of presentation was inappropriate shocks in 16 patients (45.7%), alarm alert in 12 patients (34.3%), and detection at routine follow-up in seven patients (20%). In 31 patients (89%), interrogation data revealed a sudden rise in impedance and/or frequent short VV intervals prior to lead failure and in five patients an isolated decrease of R wave (<2.5 mV). The interrogation data were not different from patients with shocks compared with patients without shocks. The interrogation data at routine follow-up in the first three months after implant were normal and stable.Conclusion. The rate of Sprint Fidelis lead failure reaches 5.7% at a mean follow-up duration of 32 months. The rate of failure does not seem to stabilise. Routine follow-up can not predict lead failure or prevent inappropriate shocks. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:12-7.).

Entities:  

Keywords:  ICD lead failure; Sprint Fidelis; inappropriate shock

Year:  2010        PMID: 20111638      PMCID: PMC2810030     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neth Heart J        ISSN: 1568-5888            Impact factor:   2.380


  9 in total

1.  Sensing failure associated with the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead.

Authors:  David N Kenigsberg; Sunil Mirchandani; Amanda N Dover; Marcin Kowalski; Mark A Wood; Richard K Shepard; Gautham Kalahasty; Kenneth M Stein; Steven M Markowitz; Sei Iwai; Bindi K Shah; Bruce B Lerman; Suneet Mittal; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2007-12-20

2.  To replace or not to replace: a systematic approach to respond to device advisories.

Authors:  Silvia G Priori; Angelo Auricchio; Seah Nisam; Patrick Yong
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2008-09-17

3.  The relation between patients' outcomes and the volume of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation procedures performed by physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Sana M Al-Khatib; F Lee Lucas; James G Jollis; David J Malenka; David E Wennberg
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2005-09-23       Impact factor: 24.094

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

Authors:  Andrew D Krahn; 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
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 6.343

5.  Downloadable algorithm to reduce inappropriate shocks caused by fractures of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads.

Authors:  Charles D Swerdlow; Bruce D Gunderson; Kevin T Ousdigian; Athula Abeyratne; Robert W Stadler; Jeffrey M Gillberg; Amisha S Patel; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-11-03       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Increasing hazard of Sprint Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure.

Authors:  Robert G Hauser; David L Hayes
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 6.343

7.  Accelerating risk of Fidelis lead fracture.

Authors:  David Farwell; Martin S Green; Robert Lemery; Michael H Gollob; David H Birnie
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-07-03       Impact factor: 6.343

8.  Failure of impedance monitoring to prevent adverse clinical events caused by fracture of a recalled high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead.

Authors:  Linda M Kallinen; Robert G Hauser; Ken W Lee; Adrian K Almquist; William T Katsiyiannis; Chuen Y Tang; Daniel P Melby; Charles C Gornick
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 6.343

9.  Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  Mark H Schoenfeld; Steven J Compton; R Hardwin Mead; Daniel N Weiss; Lou Sherfesee; Jennifer Englund; Luc R Mongeon
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.976

  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Riata type implantable cardiac defibrillator leads: increasingly small, progressively troublesome.

Authors:  A Elvan; A Adiyaman
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.380

3.  Clinical and radiographic predictors of cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead failure at the time of initial implantation.

Authors:  Eun-Jeong Kim; Giovanni Davogustto; Shi Huang; George H Crossley; Jay A Montgomery
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2021-06-07
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.