Literature DB >> 20598467

Multicenter experience with extraction of the Sprint Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead.

Melanie Maytin1, Charles J Love, Avi Fischer, Roger G Carrillo, Juan D Garisto, Maria Grazia Bongiorni, Luca Segreti, Roy M John, Gregory F Michaud, Christine M Albert, Laurence M Epstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to determine the safety and feasibility of extraction of the Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) lead.
BACKGROUND: The reported failure rate of the Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead has increased to a range greater than initially appreciated with emerging evidence of an accelerating rate of fracture. At present, consensus guidelines continue to recommend against prophylactic extraction of the lead, citing major complication rates between 1.4% and 7.3%. However, data regarding the safety and feasibility of extraction of small-diameter, backfilled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads such as the Sprint Fidelis are limited.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing extraction of Sprint Fidelis (models 6930, 6931, 6948, 6949) leads at 5 high-volume centers. Patient characteristics, indications for extraction, and use of countertraction sheath (CTS) assistance are reported. The risk of major and minor complications was determined. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to predict factors associated with the use of CTS assistance.
RESULTS: Between May 2005 and August 2009, 349 Sprint Fidelis leads were extracted from 348 patients. All leads were removed completely. The average duration of the implanted lead was 27.5 months (range 0.03 to 58.8 months). Approximately one-half of the extracted leads were fractured (49.4%), and 26.5% were extracted prophylactically. The other major indication for extraction was infection (22.8%). Extraction was achieved with simple traction in 49.4% leads; CTS assistance was required in 174 cases (50.6%). In multivariable models, length of time since implantation was directly related to the need for CTS assistance (odds ratio per month since implantation: 1.035; 95% confidence interval: 1.010 to 1.061; p=0.006). There were no major procedural complications or deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: Extraction of the Sprint Fidelis lead can be performed safely by experienced operators at high-volume centers with a complication rate lower than that reported for older generation leads. However, leads with longer implant durations are associated with the use of CTS assistance. Recommendations regarding prophylactic Sprint Fidelis lead extraction may warrant reconsideration. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20598467     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  10 in total

Review 1.  Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction.

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

2.  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 3.  A Questionable Indication For ICD Extraction After Successful VT Ablation.

Authors:  Luca Segreti; Andrea Di Cori; Giulio Zucchelli; Ezio Soldati; Giovanni Coluccia; Stefano Viani; Luca Paperini; Maria Grazia Bongiorni
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-04-30

Review 4.  Extraction of implantable cardiac electronic devices.

Authors:  John Rickard; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  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

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.  Transvenous Lead Extraction via the Inferior Approach Using a Gooseneck Snare versus Simple Manual Traction.

Authors:  Uk Jo; Jun Kim; You-Mi Hwang; Ji-Hyun Lee; Min-Su Kim; Hyung-Oh Choi; Woo-Seok Lee; Chang-Hee Kwon; Gi-Young Ko; Hyun-Ki Yoon; Gi-Byoung Nam; Kee-Joon Choi; You-Ho Kim
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 3.243

8.  ICD lead abandonment is without risk? A case of "lead on lead crime".

Authors:  Jacques Rizkallah; Laurence M Epstein
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2015-12-19

9.  Transvenous Extraction and Removal of Pacing Leads Placed after Cardiac Transplantation.

Authors:  Caleb Norton; Benjamin Holmes; Asad Al Aboud; Eun-Jeong Kim; Holly Gonzales; Christopher Ellis; Roy John; George H Crossley; Jay Montgomery
Journal:  Case Rep Cardiol       Date:  2019-01-03

10.  How Do Patients Understand Safety for Cardiac Implantable Devices? Importance of Postintervention Education.

Authors:  Bekir Serhat Yildiz; Gulin Findikoglu; Yusuf Izzettin Alihanoglu; Ismail Dogu Kilic; Harun Evrengul; Hande Senol
Journal:  Rehabil Res Pract       Date:  2018-06-24
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.