Risk of Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead failure is highly dependent on age

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead performance: A systematic review and individual patient data Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reliable post-approval surveillance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead performance remains a challenge. In the past, two ICD leads were recalled due to a high frequency of failures. In this meta-analysis, we sought to provide a combined estimate of failure-free rate for ICD leads by reconstructing individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and to investigate whether estimates could be influenced by the characteristics of the study.

METHODS

Observational studies assessing failure-free estimates of transvenous ICD leads with KM method, were identified through a systematic search up to November 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were eligible that included 41,870 (63.1%) non-recalled leads and 24,493 (36.9%) recalled leads. The 8-year cumulative failure-free rate was 94.1% (CI, 93.6% - 94.6%) for contemporary non-recalled leads and 81.2% (80.3% - 82.0%) for recalled leads (hazard ratio [HR], 3.15 [2.85-3.47], p < 0.001). Failure-free rate was lower in single-center studies in both the non-recalled (HR, 0.28 [0.15-0.51], p < 0.001) and recalled (HR, 0.54 [0.33-0.88], p = 0.014) group compared with multicenter studies. Similarly, estimates were significantly lower in small (i.e. extracted KM curve with <312 leads) versus large studies (HR non-recalled group, 0.54 [CI, 0.33-0.89], p = 0.015; HR recalled group, 0.62 [CI, 0.43-0.89], p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis including >66,000 leads, we provide pooled survival curves that may play a role in generating evidence-based standards for assessing clinically acceptable failure rates for ICD leads. Lead performance was underestimated with single-center and small-sized studies; multicenter studies remain the main tool to reliably conduct post-market surveillance of ICD leads.

Efficacy and safety of implantable cardiac defibrillators for treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis

AIMS

Implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation is a class IIA recommendation for patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). However, little is known about the efficacy and safety of ICDs in this population. The goal of this multicentre retrospective data review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICDs in patients with CS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electrophysiologists at academic medical centres were asked to identify consecutive patients with CS and an ICD. Clinical information, ICD therapy history, and device complications were collected for each patient. Data were collected on 235 patients from 13 institutions, 64.7% male with mean age 55.6 ± 11.1. Over a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 4.0 years, 85 of 234 (36.2%) patients received an appropriate ICD therapy (shocks and/or anti-tachycardia pacing) and 67 of 226 (29.7%) received an appropriate shock. Fifty-seven of 235 patients (24.3%) received a total of 222 inappropriate shocks. Forty-six adverse events occurred in 41 of 235 patients (17.4%). Patients who received appropriate ICD therapies were more likely to be male (73.8 vs. 59.6%, P = 0.0330), have a history of syncope (40.5 vs. 22.5%, P = 0.0044), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (38.1 ± 15.2 vs. 48.8 ± 14.7%, P ≤ 0.0001), ventricular pacing on baseline electrocardiogram (16.1 vs. 2.1%, P = 0.0002), and a secondary prevention indication (60.7 vs. 24.5%, P < 0.0001) compared with those who did not receive appropriate ICD therapies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CS and ICDs are at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. This population also has high rates of inappropriate shocks and device complications.