AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) deliver high burden ventricular pacing to heart failure patients, which has a significant effect on battery longevity. The aim of this study was to investigate whether battery longevity is comparable for CRT-ICDs from different manufacturers in a contemporary cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: All the CRT-ICDs implanted at our institution from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 were included in this analysis. Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected on all patients using the electronic medical record. Detailed device information was collected on all patients from scanned device printouts obtained during routine follow-up. The primary endpoint was device replacement for battery reaching the elective replacement indicator (ERI). A total of 646 patients (age 69 ± 13 years), implanted with CRT-ICDs (Boston Scientific 173, Medtronic 416, and St Jude Medical 57) were included in this analysis. During 2.7 ± 1.5 years follow-up, 113 (17%) devices had reached ERI (Boston scientific 4%, Medtronic 25%, and St Jude Medical 7%, P < 0.001). The 4-year survival rate of device battery was significantly worse for Medtronic devices compared with devices from other manufacturers (94% for Boston scientific, 67% for Medtronic, and 92% for St Jude Medical, P < 0.001). The difference in battery longevity by manufacturer was independent of pacing burden, lead parameters, and burden of ICD therapy. CONCLUSION: There are significant discrepancies in CRT-ICD battery longevity by manufacturer. These data have important implications on clinical practice and patient outcomes.
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) deliver high burden ventricular pacing to heart failurepatients, which has a significant effect on battery longevity. The aim of this study was to investigate whether battery longevity is comparable for CRT-ICDs from different manufacturers in a contemporary cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: All the CRT-ICDs implanted at our institution from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 were included in this analysis. Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected on all patients using the electronic medical record. Detailed device information was collected on all patients from scanned device printouts obtained during routine follow-up. The primary endpoint was device replacement for battery reaching the elective replacement indicator (ERI). A total of 646 patients (age 69 ± 13 years), implanted with CRT-ICDs (Boston Scientific 173, Medtronic 416, and St Jude Medical 57) were included in this analysis. During 2.7 ± 1.5 years follow-up, 113 (17%) devices had reached ERI (Boston scientific 4%, Medtronic 25%, and St Jude Medical 7%, P < 0.001). The 4-year survival rate of device battery was significantly worse for Medtronic devices compared with devices from other manufacturers (94% for Boston scientific, 67% for Medtronic, and 92% for St Jude Medical, P < 0.001). The difference in battery longevity by manufacturer was independent of pacing burden, lead parameters, and burden of ICD therapy. CONCLUSION: There are significant discrepancies in CRT-ICD battery longevity by manufacturer. These data have important implications on clinical practice and patient outcomes.
Authors: David D Daly; Anbukarasi Maran; J Madison Hyer; Frederick Funke; Ashley Waring; Frank A Cuoco; J Lacy Sturdivant; Robert B Leman; Michael R Gold Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Maurizio Landolina; Antonio Curnis; Giovanni Morani; Antonello Vado; Ernesto Ammendola; Antonio D'onofrio; Giuseppe Stabile; Martino Crosato; Barbara Petracci; Carlo Ceriotti; Luca Bontempi; Martina Morosato; Gian Paolo Ballari; Maurizio Gasparini Journal: Europace Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Faisal M Merchant; Paul Jones; Scott Wehrenberg; Michael S Lloyd; Leslie A Saxon Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: James Michael Evans; Andrew Cleves; Helen Morgan; Liesl Millar; Grace Carolan-Rees Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.561
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