Literature DB >> 20493965

Lead integrity alert algorithm decreases inappropriate shocks in patients who have Sprint Fidelis pace-sense conductor fractures.

Linda M Kallinen1, Robert G Hauser, Chuen Tang, Daniel P Melby, Adrian K Almquist, William T Katsiyiannis, Charles C Gornick.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead is prone to fracture. The majority of fractures involve the pace-sense (P/S) conductors and may result in multiple inappropriate shocks. The Medtronic lead integrity alert (LIA) algorithm was designed to improve early detection of transient P/S conductor fractures and to decrease the incidence and number of inappropriate shocks.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective single-center study was to assess the effectiveness of the LIA algorithm for warning patients of an impending Sprint Fidelis P/S conductor fracture and for decreasing the incidence and number of inappropriate shocks.
METHODS: The study population included all patients who had Sprint Fidelis leads and Medtronic ICD pulse generators that were implanted and followed at the Minneapolis Heart Institute. Patients were evaluated in the clinic every 3 to 4 months or by remote monitoring using the Medtronic CareLink system. When the LIA algorithm was released in August 2008, the RAMware was downloaded to the pulse generator of all patients with the Sprint Fidelis lead. Patients and family members received educational materials and were given a demonstration of the audible alerts.
RESULTS: Between October 2004 and January 2010, 52 (11.3%) of 461 Sprint Fidelis leads failed in the study population. Inappropriate shocks were the first sign of lead failure in 18 (69%) of the 26 patients who did not have the LIA compared to 4 (17%) of 23 patients who had the LIA (P = .0004). Patients who experienced inappropriate shocks without the LIA received an average of 13.2 +/- 13.6 inappropriate shocks (range 2-54) versus 3.0 +/- 2.0 inappropriate shocks (range 2-6) in patients who had the LIA (P = .017). The audible alert was effective in 70% (16/23) and 35% (6/17) of patients with and without the LIA, respectively, whose alerts were programmed ON (P = .053). Overall, 8 (32%) of 25 patients whose audible alerts were triggered did not immediately hear or recognize the tone.
CONCLUSION: The LIA appears to be an effective method for detecting most Sprint Fidelis lead fractures and for decreasing the incidence and number of inappropriate shocks. However, a better method for alerting patients and caregivers is needed. Copyright 2010 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20493965     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.05.015

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


  9 in total

1.  ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

Authors:  Sergio Dubner; Angelo Auricchio; Jonathan S Steinberg; Panos Vardas; Peter Stone; Josep Brugada; Ryszard Piotrowicz; David L Hayes; Paulus Kirchhof; Günter Breithardt; Wojciech Zareba; Claudio Schuger; Mehmet K Aktas; Michal Chudzik; Suneet Mittal; Niraj Varma
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.468

2.  Remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a Southeast Asian, single-centre pilot study.

Authors:  Paul Chun Yih Lim; Audry Shan Yin Lee; Kelvin Chi Ming Chua; Eric Tien Siang Lim; Daniel Thuan Tee Chong; Boon Yew Tan; Kah Leng Ho; Wee Siong Teo; Chi Keong Ching
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.858

3.  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

Review 4.  Internet-based device-assisted remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors:  G Pron; L Ieraci; K Kaulback
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2012-01-01

5.  Performance of an ICD algorithm to detect lead noise and reduce inappropriate shocks.

Authors:  Scott Beau; Stephen Greer; Christopher R Ellis; Jeffrey Keeney; Shubha Asopa; Edith Arnold; Avi Fischer
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Evaluation of defibrillation safety and shock reduction in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients with increased time to detection: A randomized SANKS study.

Authors:  Mahito Noro; Xin Zhu; Takahito Takagi; Naohiko Sahara; Yuriko Narabayashi; Hikari Hashimoto; Naoshi Ito; Yoshinari Enomoto; Shingo Kujime; Tuyoshi Sakai; Takao Sakata; Noriko Matushita; Seiji Fukamizu; Yoshifumi Okano; Yoshiaki Anami; Tomoyuki Tejima; Kouji Kuroiwa; Takanori Ikeda; Harumizu Sakurada; Kaoru Sugi
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2014-09-26

7.  Incidence of nonphysiologic short VV intervals detected by the sensing integrity counter with integrated bipolar compared with true bipolar leads: clinically inconsequential or cause for concern?

Authors:  Justin Ng; Nagesh Chopra; Chirag Barbhaiya; Tobias Reichlin; Eyal Nof; Koichi Nagashima; Thomas Tadros; Bruce A Koplan
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-02-16       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  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.  Failure of Lead Integrity Alert to detect implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead-system failure in a pacemaker-dependent patient.

Authors:  Danesh K Kella; Bruce S Stambler
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2020-08-31
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.