Literature DB >> 20497979

Complications associated with revision of Sprint Fidelis leads: report from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee.

Ratika Parkash1, Eugene Crystal, Jamil Bashir, Christopher Simpson, David Birnie, Laurence Sterns, Derek Exner, Bernard Thibault, Sean Connors, Jeffrey S Healey, Jean Champagne, Doug Cameron, Iqwal Mangat, Atul Verma, Kevin Wolfe, Vidal Essebag, Teresa Kus, Felix Ayala-Paredes, Ted Davies, Shubhayan Sanatani, Robert Gow, Benoit Coutu, Soori Sivakumaran, Elizabeth Stephenson, Andrew Krahn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been observed that replacement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator in response to a device advisory may be associated with a substantial rate of complications, including death. The risk of lead revision in response to a lead advisory has not been determined previously. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Twenty-five implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and follow-up centers from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee were surveyed to assess complication rates as a result of lead revisions due to the Sprint Fidelis advisory issued in October 2007. As of June 1, 2009, there had been 310 lead failures found in 6237 Sprint Fidelis leads in Canada (4.97%) over a follow-up of 40 months. There were 469 leads to be revised, 66% for confirmed fracture. Of the patients who underwent revision, 95% had a new lead inserted, whereas 4% had a pace/sense lead added. The lead was removed in 248 cases (53%), by simple traction in 61% and by laser lead extraction in 33%. Complications were encountered in 14.5% of the lead revisions; 7.25% of these were major, whereas 7.25% were minor. There were 2 deaths (0.43%). The overall risk of complications (19.8%) was greater in those who underwent lead removal at the time of revision than in those whose leads were abandoned (8.6%; P=0.0008).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of major complications that arose from lead revision due to the Sprint Fidelis advisory was significant. This must be taken into account when lead revision is planned in those patients who have not yet demonstrated an abnormality in lead performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20497979     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.924357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  7 in total

Review 1.  Dual- versus single-coil implantable defibrillator leads: review of the literature.

Authors:  Jörg Neuzner; Jörg Carlsson
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Use and Abuse of Internal Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention.

Authors:  Joshua R Silverstein; Demosthenes G Katritsis; Mark E Josephson
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2012-09

3.  Riata lead up to date.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Nishii
Journal:  J Cardiol Cases       Date:  2017-02-01

4.  Creation of the sole regional laser lead extraction program serving Atlantic Canada: initial experience.

Authors:  Kenneth J Williams; Scott O'Keefe; Jean-Francois Légaré
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 5.  Troubleshooting during a challenging high-risk pacemaker lead extraction: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Jacques Rizkallah; William Kent; Vikas Kuriachan; John Burgess; Derek Exner
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-03-25

6.  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

7.  Generator and lead-related complications of implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  Ahmad Yaminisharif; Nader Soofizadeh; Akbar Shafiee; Ali Kazemisaeid; Arash Jalali; Ali Vasheghani-Farahani
Journal:  Int Cardiovasc Res J       Date:  2014-04-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.