Literature DB >> 21242478

Longevity of Sprint Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads and risk factors for failure: implications for patient management.

Robert G Hauser1, William H Maisel, Paul A Friedman, Linda M Kallinen, Andrew S Mugglin, Kapil Kumar, David O Hodge, Thomas B Morrison, David L Hayes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads are prone to fractures that have caused adverse events, primarily inappropriate shocks, and a few reported deaths. More than 100 000 patients have Fidelis leads. No independent multicenter long-term performance information exists for this lead, and single-center studies suggest that certain patients are at increased risk for Fidelis failure. Our aim was to assess the longevity of Fidelis leads and to evaluate clinical variables and adverse events associated with Fidelis failure. The results were compared with like data for Quattro Secure (Quattro) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads implanted at our centers. METHODS AND
RESULTS: This 3-center study included adults ≥18 years of age who received Fidelis or Quattro leads for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. From November 2001 to January 2009,1023 Fidelis and 1668 Quattro leads were implanted and followed up. The failure rate for Fidelis leads was 2.81%/y compared with 0.43%/y for Quattro leads (P<0.0001). No deaths or injuries occurred as a result of lead failure, but 42% of fractures caused inappropriate shocks. The survival of Fidelis leads at 4 years was 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 83.6 to 90.1) compared with 98.7% (95% confidence interval, 97.9 to 99.4) for Quattro leads (P<0.0001). Multivariate predictors of Fidelis failure were younger age (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 0.99), female gender (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 1.00), and cardiac disease (P=0.041).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Quattro leads, the survival of Fidelis leads continues to decline, and Fidelis failure is notably higher in younger patients, women, individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia or channelopathies. These findings have significant implications for the management of patients who have Fidelis leads, and they demonstrate the importance of weighing clinical variables in assessments of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21242478     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.975219

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


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  [Lead survival and complications (except infections). Are we doing better nowadays?].

Authors:  Martin Seifert; Michael Neuss; Maren Schöpp; Cornel Koban; Christian Butter
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2013-08-06

Review 3.  The Saga of Defibrillation Testing: When Less Is More.

Authors:  Marye J Gleva; Melissa Robinson; Jeanne Poole
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 4.  Clinical experience with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Geoffrey F Lewis; Michael R Gold
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 32.419

5.  Active Surveillance of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry for Defibrillator Lead Failures.

Authors:  Frederic S Resnic; Arjun Majithia; Sanket S Dhruva; Henry Ssemaganda; Susan Robbins; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Kathleen Hewitt; Lucila Ohno-Machado; Matthew R Reynolds; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2020-04-14

6.  Biventricular pacing and coronary sinus ICD lead implantation in a patient with a mechanical tricuspid valve replacement.

Authors:  Neil T Srinivasan; Oliver R Segal
Journal:  J Cardiol Cases       Date:  2015-08-29

7.  Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead reliability: implications for postmarket surveillance.

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Laura A Hatfield; Deepa McGriff; Christopher R Ellis; Melanie T Gura; Michelle Samuel; Linda Kallinen Retel; Robert G Hauser
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 5.501

8.  Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: An Initial Experience.

Authors:  Jonathan Weinstock; Yousef H Bader; Martin S Maron; Ethan J Rowin; Mark S Link
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  Turning a blind eye to the far field: Are we burying the evidence? A case of abrupt catastrophic implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure causing sudden death.

Authors:  Stephen Tuohy; Paul Ryan; Joseph Galvin
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2015-09-04

10.  Critical appraisal of cardiac implantable electronic devices: complications and management.

Authors:  Luigi Padeletti; Giosuè Mascioli; Alessandro Paoletti Perini; Gino Grifoni; Laura Perrotta; Procolo Marchese; Luca Bontempi; Antonio Curnis
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2011-09-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.