BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy for patients at risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Due to its high cost, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on its longevity, which is currently only based upon the manufacturer's predicted device life span. AIM: We sought to assess the ICDs' longevity and the factors influencing it, and to compare the observed (real life) to the expected (manufacturer's prediction) life span at a device level. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent an ICD implantation in a tertiary care medical center. For each device, an expected longevity was assigned based on the manufacturer/model, pacing percentage, and number of shocks per year. We defined device failure if the observed survival was shorter than 80 % of the expected. Only devices with follow-up time that exceeded the expected longevity were included. RESULTS: Of the 275 devices in the cohort, 79 (29 %) failed. Median device longevity was 5 years and varied markedly between manufacturers (4.3, 4.8, 5.1, and 6.3 years for Biotronik, St. Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, respectively). There were significant differences among the manufacturers in device failure rates: 48, 17, 22, and 14 % for Biotronik, St. Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, respectively). In multivariate analysis, manufacturer, earlier year of implantation, congestive heart failure and chronic renal failure significantly predicted device failure. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, there is a significant device failure rate among ICDs, with variability among manufacturers, impacting both patients and the medical economic systems.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy for patients at risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Due to its high cost, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on its longevity, which is currently only based upon the manufacturer's predicted device life span. AIM: We sought to assess the ICDs' longevity and the factors influencing it, and to compare the observed (real life) to the expected (manufacturer's prediction) life span at a device level. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent an ICD implantation in a tertiary care medical center. For each device, an expected longevity was assigned based on the manufacturer/model, pacing percentage, and number of shocks per year. We defined device failure if the observed survival was shorter than 80 % of the expected. Only devices with follow-up time that exceeded the expected longevity were included. RESULTS: Of the 275 devices in the cohort, 79 (29 %) failed. Median device longevity was 5 years and varied markedly between manufacturers (4.3, 4.8, 5.1, and 6.3 years for Biotronik, St. Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, respectively). There were significant differences among the manufacturers in device failure rates: 48, 17, 22, and 14 % for Biotronik, St. Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, respectively). In multivariate analysis, manufacturer, earlier year of implantation, congestive heart failure and chronic renal failure significantly predicted device failure. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, there is a significant device failure rate among ICDs, with variability among manufacturers, impacting both patients and the medical economic systems.
Authors: Joep Thijssen; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Johannes B van Rees; SumChe Man; Mihály K de Bie; Jeroen Venlet; Enno T van der Velde; Lieselot van Erven; Martin J Schalij Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P Dimarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert G Hauser; David L Hayes; Andrew E Epstein; David S Cannom; Stephen C Vlay; Susan L Song; G Frank O Tyers Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2006-02-28 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew R Reynolds; David J Cohen; Aaron D Kugelmass; Phillip P Brown; Edmund R Becker; Steven D Culler; April W Simon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-05-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Katarzyna Gepner; Andrzej Przybylski; Aleksander Maciag; Maciej Sterliński; Michał Lewandowski; Paweł Syska; Ilona Kowalik; Hanna Szwed Journal: Kardiol Pol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.108
Authors: Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lara Dabiri Abkenari; Dominic A M J Theuns; Suzanne D A Valk; Yves Van Belle; Natasja M de Groot; David Haitsma; Agnes Muskens-Heemskerk; Tamas Szili-Torok; Luc Jordaens Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Joachim Seegers; Pascal Muñoz Expósito; Lars Lüthje; Thomas Fischer; Matthias Lueken; Hannes Wenk; Samuel T Sossalla; Gerd Hasenfuss; Markus Zabel Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Simon von Gunten; Beat A Schaer; Sing-Chien Yap; Tamas Szili-Torok; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling; Stefan Osswald; Dominic A M J Theuns Journal: Europace Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Fredrik Gadler; Yao Ding; Nathalie Verin; Martin Bergius; Jeffrey D Miller; Gregory M Lenhart; Mason W Russell Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2016-10-31