Literature DB >> 21539638

Inappropriate shocks in patients with Fidelis® lead fractures: impact of remote monitoring and the lead integrity algorithm.

Zalmen Blanck1, Kathi Axtell, Kathy Brodhagen, Laura O'Hearn, Tammy Albelo, Cheryl Ceretto, Anwer Dhala, Jasbir Sra, Masood Akhtar.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The role of remote monitoring combined with lead integrity algorithm (LIA) in patients with Fidelis (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) lead fractures is not well defined.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with Fidelis lead fractures at our institution, documenting all pertinent data (remote monitoring use, clinical presentation, lead fracture diagnosis criteria). Patients were classified into subgroups based on the type of home monitoring and whether LIA was uploaded before lead fracture. Subgroups were compared based on delivery of inappropriate shocks (IS).
RESULTS: A total of 131 patients (mean age 62 ± 16 years, 70% male, 69% primary prevention implants) were followed until lead fracture (average 32 ± 12 months). IS were delivered in 21% of patients (n = 11/52) with LIA versus 52% (n = 41/79) without LIA, P < 0.001. LIA significantly decreased the number of IS (2.1 ± 1.0 IS vs 7.9 ± 12 IS, P < 0.001) and significantly increased the number of patients diagnosed through audible alert (P < 0.001). Wireless monitoring significantly decreased the time interval to reprogram defibrillators OFF (mean 1.5 ± 1 days vs 15.6 ± 18 days with nonwireless CareLink [Medtronic Inc.] and 12.4 ± 20 days without CareLink, P < 0.001); 14% of patients with LIA and wireless monitoring combined received IS. Without LIA, 63% of patients with wireless monitoring received IS.
CONCLUSION: This study confirms that LIA significantly decreases IS therapy in patients with Fidelis lead fractures. Wireless technology enhances LIA benefits by significantly shortening time to reprogram defibrillators. However, despite the "best scenario" of combining LIA and wireless monitoring, 14% of patients with lead fractures still get IS. Further refinements of detection algorithms are required to eliminate this significant clinical problem.
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21539638     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02077.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  4 in total

Review 1.  Heart Rhythm Society: expert consensus statements-part 1.

Authors:  Susie Sennhauser; Rishi Anand; Fred Kusumoto; Nora Goldschlager
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 2.  Sensing and detection in Medtronic implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  Mark L Brown; Charles D Swerdlow
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2016-09-08

3.  2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.

Authors:  Bruce L Wilkoff; Laurent Fauchier; Martin K Stiles; Carlos A Morillo; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jesœs Almendral; Luis Aguinaga; Ronald D Berger; Alejandro Cuesta; James P Daubert; Sergio Dubner; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Guilherme Fenelon; Fermin C Garcia; Maurizio Gasparini; David E Haines; Jeff S Healey; Jodie L Hurtwitz; Roberto Keegan; Christof Kolb; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Germanas Marinskis; Martino Martinelli; Mark McGuire; Luis G Molina; Ken Okumura; Alessandro Proclemer; Andrea M Russo; Jagmeet P Singh; Charles D Swerdlow; Wee Siong Teo; William Uribe; Sami Viskin; Chun-Chieh Wang; Shu Zhang
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2016-02-01

4.  Myopotential oversensing notified by Lead Integrity Alert in a patient with implantable cardioverter defibrillator with a dedicated bipolar epicardial sensing lead.

Authors:  Kyoichiro Yazaki; Yoichi Ajiro; Shun Hasegawa; Masahiro Watanabe; Kei Tsukamoto; Keiko Mizobuchi; Takashi Saito; Fumiaki Mori; Kazunori Iwade
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2016-10-11
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.