Literature DB >> 23454808

Diagnosis of high-voltage conductor fractures in Sprint Fidelis leads.

Jayanthi N Koneru1, Bruce D Gunderson, Haresh Sachanandani, Barry N Wohl, Katherine T Kendall, Charles D Swerdlow, Kenneth A Ellenbogen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fractures of pace/sense conductors in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads have been studied extensively, but little is known about fractures of high-voltage (HV) conductors.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the presentation of isolated HV conductor fractures, define the optimal impedance threshold for identifying them, and compare it to the existing nominal impedance threshold (200 Ω) for patient and remote-monitoring alerts.
METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed HV fractures in explanted, dual-coil, model 6949 Sprint Fidelis leads (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN). The study group consisted of 25 leads with structurally and electrically confirmed HV conductor fractures; 41 leads that were structurally and electrically intact served as controls. We analyzed long-term HV impedance trends from stored ICD data files of both groups to determine the optimal impedance threshold that would discriminate fractures from normal leads.
RESULTS: In the study group, 14 leads (56%) had fractures of the cable to the right ventricular coil, 9 (36 %) leads had fractures of the cable to the superior vena cava (SVC) coil, and 2 (8%) had both. We found that an impedance threshold of >100 Ω and/or an abrupt 75% increase in chronic HV impedance were diagnostic of HV conductor fractures with 100% sensitivity and specificity. HV fractures proximal to the SVC coil were more likely to be associated with concomitant pace/sense fractures. Large (200 Ω to infinity), abrupt increases in impedance were more common when fractures occurred proximal to the right ventricular coil but distal to the SVC coil.
CONCLUSIONS: HV conductor fractures can be diagnosed when HV impedance exceeds 100 Ω or abruptly increases by 75% from baseline.
Copyright © 2013 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23454808     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.02.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  3 in total

1.  [Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Is remote monitoring obligatory?].

Authors:  Fritz W Horlbeck; J O Schwab
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2015-04-22

2.  Transparency and Dermatologic Device Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  Harib H Ezaldein; Jeffrey F Scott; Emily S Yin; Alessandra Ventura; Nicholaas P DeRuyter; David J Leffell
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 10.282

3.  High shocking and pacing impedances due to defibrillation lead calcification.

Authors:  Robert G Hauser; Jay Sengupta; Susan Casey; Chuen Tang; Larissa I Stanberry; Raed Abdelhadi
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 1.900

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.