First clinical experience with the new four-pole standard connector for high-voltage ICD leads. Early results of a multicenter comparison with conventional implant outcomes

Examining the Need to Standardize Implanted Stimulator Connectors: NANS Survey Results

INTRODUCTION

Connectors between implanted stimulator electrodes and pulse generators allow revisions, including battery changes or generator upgrades, to proceed without disturbing uninvolved components, such as the electrode. As new devices are introduced, however, connector incompatibility, even with updated hardware from the same manufacturer, can lead to additional procedures, expense, and morbidity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following the example of the cardiac pacemaker/defibrillator industry, the Institute of Neuromodulation (IoN) met to explore the possibility of creating connector standards for implanted neurostimulation devices. At a subsequent meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, which coordinates the development of such standards, industry representatives asked for data defining the need for a new standard. Accordingly, IoN prepared an online survey to be sent to the North American Neuromodulation Society mailing list regarding experience with the connectivity of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) generators and electrodes.

RESULTS

The 87 respondents of 9657 surveyed included 77 clinicians, who reported a total of 42,572 SCS implants and revisions. More than a quarter of revisions (2741 of 9935) required the interconnection of devices made by separate manufacturers, in most cases (n = 1528) to take advantage of a new feature (e.g., rechargeability, new waveform) or because an original component could not be replaced (n = 642). Connector adapters provided by manufacturers were used in less than half (n = 1246) of these cases. Nearly all (94%) of the clinicians agreed that standardized connectors should be developed for SCS, and 86% opined that standardized connectors should be developed for other neurostimulation therapies.

CONCLUSION

Those who responded to our survey support the development of standard connectors for implanted stimulators, with voluntary compliance by manufacturers, to mitigate the need for adapters and facilitate interchanging components when appropriate. Other advantages to patients and manufacturers might accrue from the adoption of standards, as technology evolves and diversifies.

Important Parameters for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Selection

The efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in reducing the risk of sudden cardiac death has been well established by several clinical trials. Several factors relating to device characteristics, patient attributes, and comorbidities should be considered when selecting the appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillators for each patient. This review examines some of these issues.

Clinical performance of different DF-4 implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) DF-4 connectors have been introduced to facilitate defibrillator lead connection and to reduce the size of device header. There are limited data regarding the overall performance of those leads and no comparison between different ICD DF-4 leads.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of consecutive patients implanted with ICD DF-4 lead system at one University Centre between October 2010 and February 2015. A historical control group of patients with ICD DF-1 lead implantation was used for comparison. The following ICD DF-4 leads were evaluated: St. Jude Medical Durata 7122Q (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA), Medtronic Sprint Quattro Secure 6935 M (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), Boston Scientific Endotak Reliance 4-Site 0293 (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), and Boston Scientific Reliance 4-Front 0693. This study evaluated the acute and mid-term performances of those leads as well as complications.

RESULTS

A total of 812 patients (age 63 ± 12 years, 80% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 31 ± 12%) underwent implantation of an ICD DF-4 lead. Acute and follow-up R-wave sensing and threshold were excellent. Compared to implantation, intrinsic R waves were higher at follow-up for Boston Scientific and Medtronic leads, and pacing lead impedances were lower for all leads at first follow-up (P < 0.001). The number of lead dislodgement or failure was similar between all leads. The estimated lead survival rates at 3 years were 95.6% for Boston Scientific Endotak 4-Site, 97.1% for Boston Scientific 4-Front, 97.7% for Medtronic Sprint Quattro, and 97.5% for St. Jude Durata (P  =  0.553).

CONCLUSION

All ICD DF-4 leads had excellent acute and mid-term electrical performances. Longer follow-up will be necessary to confirm their sustained performance.

[ICD leads]

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads have to fulfill particular requirements: safe pacing and sensing, detection, and termination of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, if necessary by (multiple) high-energy shocks. At the same time, their implantation has to be simple, they need to provide excellent long-term stability and they must be completely and safely extractable. Numerous technical developments have enabled currently available ICD leads to fulfill these expectations to a high extent. However, some changes of lead design, materials, and manufacturing processes have led to increased lead failure, especially in two lead models (Medtronic Sprint Fidelis®, St. Jude Medical Riata®). The high rate of lead failure was identified only several years after market release, in part because there are no appropriate registries of ICD leads. This review presents background and developments of ICD lead technology and their association with the clinical usage of ICD therapy. To also benefit patients with only slightly-to-moderately increased risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia, optimum ICD therapy requires optimal leads and sufficiently experienced implanters.