Literature DB >> 24176060

Longitudinal follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads.

Jeffrey Liu1, Genevieve Brumberg1, Rohit Rattan1, Divyang Patel1, Evan Adelstein1, Sandeep Jain1, Samir Saba2.   

Abstract

Although implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads are prone to failure and Food and Drug Administration recall, comprehensive longitudinal studies investigating contemporary ICD lead survival rate in the United States are lacking. All patients receiving Medtronic, Boston Scientific, or St. Jude Medical transvenous ICD leads at the hospitals of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from 2000 to 2012 were included. Leads were classified as (1) functional lead, patient deceased; (2) functional lead, replaced; (3) failed lead, replaced; or (4) functional lead, active. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for all lead models separately and in aggregate. We followed 5,288 patients (1,020 Quattro, 623 Fidelis, 627 Riata, 828 Durata, and 2,190 Reliance) over 3.7 ± 3.3 years. Functional leads that were replaced included 30 Quattro (3%), 99 Fidelis (16%), 24 Riata (4%), 24 Durata (3%), and 62 Reliance (3%). Leads replaced because of failure included 11 Quattro (1%), 47 Fidelis (8%), 38 Riata (6%), 18 Durata (2%), and 26 Reliance (1%; p <0.001 for Food and Drug Administration recalled vs nonrecalled leads). Overall survival rate of all leads was 89.3% at 5 years. Survival curves of Riata and Fidelis diverged from nonrecalled leads at approximately 2 years. In conclusion, the overall survival rate of ICD leads is nearly 90% at 5 years. Survival curves of recalled leads diverge from nonrecalled leads after 2 years of implantation. These data have important implications on postmarket release monitoring of ICD leads and physicians' choice of leads.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24176060     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.08.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  The mismatch between patient life expectancy and the service life of implantable devices in current cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: a call for larger device batteries.

Authors:  Jörg Neuzner
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Electromagnetic interference in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: present but rare.

Authors:  Gesa von Olshausen; Ina-Christine Rondak; Carsten Lennerz; Verena Semmler; Christian Grebmer; Tilko Reents; Sonia Ammar-Busch; Alessandra Buiatti; Felix Bourier; Isabel Deisenhofer; Christof Kolb
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 3.  Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Lead Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Authors:  Rui Providência; Daniel B Kramer; Dominic Pimenta; Girish G Babu; Laura A Hatfield; Adam Ioannou; Jan Novak; Robert G Hauser; Pier D Lambiase
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 5.501

4.  High-voltage impedance rise; mechanism and management in patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a case series.

Authors:  Christopher Monkhouse; Alex Cambridge; Anthony W C Chow; Jonathan M Behar
Journal:  Eur Heart J Case Rep       Date:  2019-12-19
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.