Emily P Zeitler1, Divyang Patel2, Vic Hasselblad3, Gillian D Sanders3, Sana M Al-Khatib4. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina; Duke University Medical System, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Duke University Medical System, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina; Duke University Medical System, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: alkha001@mc.duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) recalls and advisories has increased over the past 3 decades, yet no consensus exists on how to best manage patients with these CIEDs, partially because rates of complications from prophylactic replacement are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish rates of complications when recalled CIED generators are replaced prophylactically. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for reports of prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators. Studies with <20 subjects were excluded. We then conducted a meta-analysis of qualifying studies to determine the rates of combined major complications, mortality, and reoperation. RESULTS: We identified 7 citations that met our inclusion criteria and reported ≥1 end-points of interest. Four were single center, and 3 were multicenter. Six studies collected data retrospectively (n = 1213) and 1 prospectively (n = 222). Using a random effects model to combine data from all included studies, the rate of major complications was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0%-4.5%). Combining data from 6 studies reporting mortality and reoperation, the rates were 0.5% (95% CI 0.1%-0.9%) and 2.5% (95% CI 0.8%-4.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators is associated with a low mortality rate but nontrivial rates of other major complications similar to those reported when CIED generators are replaced for other reasons. Thus, when considering replacing a recalled CIED generator, known risks of elective generator replacement likely apply and can be weighed against risks associated with device failure.
BACKGROUND: The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) recalls and advisories has increased over the past 3 decades, yet no consensus exists on how to best manage patients with these CIEDs, partially because rates of complications from prophylactic replacement are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish rates of complications when recalled CIED generators are replaced prophylactically. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for reports of prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators. Studies with <20 subjects were excluded. We then conducted a meta-analysis of qualifying studies to determine the rates of combined major complications, mortality, and reoperation. RESULTS: We identified 7 citations that met our inclusion criteria and reported ≥1 end-points of interest. Four were single center, and 3 were multicenter. Six studies collected data retrospectively (n = 1213) and 1 prospectively (n = 222). Using a random effects model to combine data from all included studies, the rate of major complications was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0%-4.5%). Combining data from 6 studies reporting mortality and reoperation, the rates were 0.5% (95% CI 0.1%-0.9%) and 2.5% (95% CI 0.8%-4.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators is associated with a low mortality rate but nontrivial rates of other major complications similar to those reported when CIED generators are replaced for other reasons. Thus, when considering replacing a recalled CIED generator, known risks of elective generator replacement likely apply and can be weighed against risks associated with device failure.
Authors: Howard Balshem; Mark Helfand; Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan Norris; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jeanne E Poole; Marye J Gleva; Theofanie Mela; Mina K Chung; Daniel Z Uslan; Richard Borge; Venkateshwar Gottipaty; Timothy Shinn; Dan Dan; Leon A Feldman; Hanscy Seide; Stuart A Winston; John J Gallagher; Jonathan J Langberg; Kevin Mitchell; Richard Holcomb Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Kathleen N Lohr; David Atkins; Jonathan R Treadwell; James T Reston; Eric B Bass; Stephanie Chang; Mark Helfand Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Suneet Mittal; Richard E Shaw; Kimberly Michel; Rachel Palekar; Aysha Arshad; Dan Musat; Mark Preminger; Tina Sichrovsky; Jonathan S Steinberg Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Andrew D Krahn; Douglas S Lee; David Birnie; Jeffrey S Healey; Eugene Crystal; Paul Dorian; Christopher S Simpson; Yaariv Khaykin; Douglas Cameron; Amir Janmohamed; Raymond Yee; Peter C Austin; Zhongliang Chen; Judy Hardy; Jack V Tu Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-02-15
Authors: John W Moore; William Barrington; Raveen Bazaz; Sandeep Jain; Jan Nemec; Ogundu Ngwu; David Schwartzman; Alaa Shalaby; Samir Saba Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 4.164
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