Eran Leshem1,2, Mahmoud Suleiman3, Avishag Laish-Farkash4, Yuval Konstantino5, Michael Glikson6, Alon Barsheshet7, Ilan Goldenberg6,8, Yoav Michowitz1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Tel-Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2. Cardiovascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 185 Pilgrim Rd, Boston, MA 02215, USA. 3. Cardiology Department, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 4. Cardiology Department, Barzilai Medical Center, Ashkelon, Israel. 5. Cardiology Department, Soroka Medical Center, Beer Sheva, Israel. 6. Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. 7. Cardiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. 8. IACT-Neufeld Cardiac Research Institute, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Abstract
AIMS: Dual-coil leads were traditionally considered standard of care due to lower defibrillation thresholds (DFT). Higher complication rates during extraction with parallel progression in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology raised questions on dual coil necessity. Prior substudies found no significant outcome difference between dual and single coils, although using higher rates of DFT testing then currently practiced. We evaluated the temporal trends in implantation rates of single- vs. dual-coil leads and determined the associated adverse clinical outcomes, using a contemporary nation-wide ICD registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between July 2010 and March 2015, 6343 consecutive ICD (n = 3998) or CRT-D (n = 2345) implantation patients were prospectively enrolled in the Israeli ICD Registry. A follow-up of at least 1 year of 2285 patients was available for outcome analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Single-coil leads were implanted in 32% of our cohort, 36% among ICD recipients, and 26% among CRT-D recipients. Secondary prevention indication was associated with an increased rate of dual-coil implantation. A significant decline in dual-coil leads with reciprocal incline of single coils was observed, despite low rates of DFT testing (11.6%) during implantation, which also declined from 31 to 2%. In the multivariate Cox model analysis, dual- vs. single-coil lead implantation was not associated with an increased risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; P= 0.33], heart failure hospitalization (HR = 1.34; P=0.13), appropriate (HR = 1.25; P= 0.33), or inappropriate ICD therapy (HR = 2.07; P= 0.12). CONCLUSION: Real-life rates of single-coil lead implantation are rising while adding no additional risk. These results of single-coil safety are reassuring and obtained, despite low and contemporary rates of DFT testing. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Dual-coil leads were traditionally considered standard of care due to lower defibrillation thresholds (DFT). Higher complication rates during extraction with parallel progression in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology raised questions on dual coil necessity. Prior substudies found no significant outcome difference between dual and single coils, although using higher rates of DFT testing then currently practiced. We evaluated the temporal trends in implantation rates of single- vs. dual-coil leads and determined the associated adverse clinical outcomes, using a contemporary nation-wide ICD registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between July 2010 and March 2015, 6343 consecutive ICD (n = 3998) or CRT-D (n = 2345) implantation patients were prospectively enrolled in the Israeli ICD Registry. A follow-up of at least 1 year of 2285 patients was available for outcome analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Single-coil leads were implanted in 32% of our cohort, 36% among ICD recipients, and 26% among CRT-D recipients. Secondary prevention indication was associated with an increased rate of dual-coil implantation. A significant decline in dual-coil leads with reciprocal incline of single coils was observed, despite low rates of DFT testing (11.6%) during implantation, which also declined from 31 to 2%. In the multivariate Cox model analysis, dual- vs. single-coil lead implantation was not associated with an increased risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; P= 0.33], heart failure hospitalization (HR = 1.34; P=0.13), appropriate (HR = 1.25; P= 0.33), or inappropriate ICD therapy (HR = 2.07; P= 0.12). CONCLUSION: Real-life rates of single-coil lead implantation are rising while adding no additional risk. These results of single-coil safety are reassuring and obtained, despite low and contemporary rates of DFT testing. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Bruce L Wilkoff; Laurent Fauchier; Martin K Stiles; Carlos A Morillo; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jesús Almendral; Luis Aguinaga; Ronald D Berger; Alejandro Cuesta; James P Daubert; Sergio Dubner; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Guilherme Fenelon; Fermin C Garcia; Maurizio Gasparini; David E Haines; Jeff S Healey; Jodie L Hurtwitz; Roberto Keegan; Christof Kolb; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Germanas Marinskis; Martino Martinelli; Mark McGuire; Luis G Molina; Ken Okumura; Alessandro Proclemer; Andrea M Russo; Jagmeet P Singh; Charles D Swerdlow; Wee Siong Teo; William Uribe; Sami Viskin; Chun-Chieh Wang; Shu Zhang Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Alon Eisen; Mahmoud Suleiman; Boris Strasberg; Ron Sela; Shimon Rosenheck; Nahum A Freedberg; Michael Geist; Shlomit Ben-Zvi; Ilan Goldenberg; Michael Glikson; Moti Haim Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2014-06-06
Authors: Michael P Brunner; Edmond M Cronin; Valeria E Duarte; Changhong Yu; Khaldoun G Tarakji; David O Martin; Thomas Callahan; Daniel J Cantillon; Mark J Niebauer; Walid I Saliba; Mohamed Kanj; Oussama Wazni; Bryan Baranowski; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Valentina Kutyifa; Anne-Christine Huth Ruwald; Mehmet K Aktas; Christian Jons; Scott McNitt; Bronislava Polonsky; Laszlo Geller; Bela Merkely; Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2013-07-25
Authors: Yoav Arnson; Mahmoud Suleiman; Michael Glikson; Ron Sela; Michael Geist; Guy Amit; Jorge E Schliamser; Ilan Goldenberg; Shlomit Ben-Zvi; Katia Orvin; Shimon Rosenheck; Nahum Adam Freedberg; Boris Strasberg; Moti Haim Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jeff S Healey; Stefan H Hohnloser; Michael Glikson; Jorg Neuzner; Phillipe Mabo; Xavier Vinolas; Josef Kautzner; Gilles O'Hara; Lieselot VanErven; Fredrik Gadler; Janice Pogue; Ursula Appl; Jim Gilkerson; Thierry Pochet; Kenneth M Stein; Bela Merkely; Susan Chrolavicius; Brandi Meeks; Csaba Foldesi; Bernard Thibault; Stuart J Connolly Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Guy Amit; Mahmoud Suleiman; Yuval Konstantino; David Luria; Mark Kazatsker; Israel Chetboun; Moti Haim; Natalie Gavrielov-Yusim; Ilan Goldenberg; Michael Glikson Journal: Europace Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Andrzej Ząbek; Krzysztof Boczar; Maciej Dębski; Mateusz Ulman; Roman Pfitzner; Robert Musiał; Jacek Lelakowski; Barbara Małecka Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 1.817