Literature DB >> 32798776

Unexpected high failure rate of a specific MicroPort/LivaNova/Sorin pacing lead.

Andreas Haeberlin1, Marie-Theres Anwander2, Thomas Kueffer2, Maximilien Tholl3, Samuel Baldinger2, Helge Servatius2, Anna Lam2, Florian Franzeck2, Babken Asatryan2, Adrian Zurbuchen3, Hildegard Tanner2, Tobias Reichlin2, Laurent Roten2, Fabian Noti2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pacing leads are the Achilles heel of pacemakers. Most manufacturers report a 3-year survival rate of >99% of their leads. We observed several failures of the Beflex/Vega leads (MicroPort, Shanghai, China; formerly Sorin/LivaNova).
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate failure rates of Beflex/Vega leads.
METHODS: We analyzed the performance of Beflex/Vega leads implanted at our tertiary referral center. All-cause lead failures (any issues requiring reinterventions such as lead dislocations, cardiac perforations, and electrical abnormalities) were identified during follow-up. The Beflex/Vega lead was compared with a reference lead (CapSureFix Novus 5076, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) implanted within the same period and by the same operators.
RESULTS: A total of 585 leads were analyzed (382 Beflex/Vega and 203 CapSureFix Novus 5076 leads). Cumulative failure rate estimates were 5.2%, 6.3%, and 12.4% after 1, 2, and 3 years for the Beflex/Vega lead. This was worse compared to the reference lead (1.5%, 1.5%, 3.7% after 1, 2, and 3 years; P = .001). Early failure manifestations up to 3 months occurred at a similar rate (Beflex/Vega vs CapSureFix Novus 5076 lead: 1.3% vs 0.5% for dislocations; 1.3% vs 1.0% for perforations). During follow-up, electrical abnormalities such as noise oversensing (P = .013) and increased pacing thresholds (P = .003) became more frequent in the Beflex/Vega group. Electrical abnormalities were the most common failure manifestation 3 years after implantation in this group (9.4% vs 2.2% for the CapSureFix Novus 5076).
CONCLUSION: The failure rate of the Beflex/Vega lead of >10% after 3 years was higher than that of a competitor lead. This gives rise to concern since >135,000 such leads are active worldwide.
Copyright © 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Beflex; CapSureFix; Complication; Lead failure; Lead survival; Medtronic; MicroPort; Oversensing; Pacemaker; Vega

Year:  2020        PMID: 32798776     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.08.010

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


  3 in total

1.  A Robot Mimicking Heart Motions: An Ex-Vivo Test Approach for Cardiac Devices.

Authors:  Rolf Vogel; Andreas Haeberlin; Adrian Zurbuchen; Aloïs Pfenniger; Sammy Omari; Tobias Reichlin
Journal:  Cardiovasc Eng Technol       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 2.305

2.  Long-Term Technical Performance of the Osypka QT-5® Ventricular Pacemaker Lead.

Authors:  Georg Semmler; Fabian Barbieri; Karin Thudt; Paul Vock; Deddo Mörtl; Harald Mayr; Christian Georg Wollmann; Agne Adukauskaite; Bernhard Pfeifer; Thomas Senoner; Wolfgang Dichtl
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 3.  Evolution of tricuspid valve regurgitation after implantation of a leadless pacemaker: A single center experience, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Haeberlin; Joanna Bartkowiak; Nicolas Brugger; Hildegard Tanner; Elaine Wan; Samuel H Baldinger; Jens Seiler; Antonio Madaffari; Gregor Thalmann; Helge Servatius; Laurent Roten; Fabian Noti; Tobias Reichlin
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 2.942

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.