Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure: analysis of explanted leads with a unique insulation defect

Poorer outcomes associated with more invasive lead management strategies for Abbott Riata® leads: a large, multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Over 100,000 Abbott Riata® were implanted in the United States before they were recalled in 2010. There are still a significant number of Abbott Riata® leads in use, and it is unclear how these leads should be managed at the time of generator change or lead malfunction. Although data comparing both Sprint Fidelis® and Abbott Riata® leads in this setting is available, there are no multicenter comparative studies of outcomes for various lead management strategies, including lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment/revision (LA), and generator change (GC) only at the time of device at elective replacement interval (ERI) for Abbott Riata® leads.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter study was undertaken to compare short-term outcomes (major complications-MC, death, extended or re-hospitalizations within 60 days-RH, lead malfunction-LM) and total outcomes (short-term outcomes & lead malfunction during follow-up) of patients with Riata® leads undergoing LE, LA, or GC.

RESULTS

152 patients (65 ± 13 years, 68% male) were followed for a mean 33 ± 30 months following intervention. Out of 166 procedures, 13 patients underwent LE, 16 patients underwent LA, and 137 patients underwent GC. There was 1 major complication in each group, yielding an event rate of 7.7% for LE, 6.3% for LA, and 0.7% for GC cohorts. There were significantly more short-term and total adverse outcomes in the group of patients getting LE and LA versus GC only (38.5% & 31.3% vs 7.3%, P < 0.001). Total Riata® lead dwell time follow-up was 17,067 months. A total of 3 Riata® lead malfunctions were noted during long-term follow-up. Inappropriate shocks were similar between LE 7.7% (1/13), LA 6.3% (1/16). and GC 11.0% (4/136); P = 0.57.

CONCLUSIONS

There were more short-term and total adverse outcomes in more invasive management strategies (LE and LA) versus GC alone. The failure rate of Riata® leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. Therefore, we recommend only performing battery exchange when a device with an active Riata® lead is at ERI, unless there is malfunction of the Riata® lead noted on testing.

Long-term performance of single-connector (DF4) implantable defibrillator leads

AIMS

Single-connector (DF4) defibrillator leads have become the predominantly implanted transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. However, data on their long-term performance are derived predominantly from manufacturer product performance reports.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed medical records in 5289 patients with DF4 leads between 2011 and 2023 to determine the frequency of lead-related abnormalities. We defined malfunction as any single or combination of electrical abnormalities requiring revision including a sudden increase (≥2×) in stimulation threshold, a discrete jump in high-voltage impedance, or sensing of non-physiologic intervals or noise. We documented time to failure, predictors of failure, and management strategies. Mean follow-up after implant was 4.15 ± 3.6 years (median = 3.63), with 37% of leads followed for >5 years. A total of 80 (1.5%) leads demonstrated electrical abnormalities requiring revision with an average time to failure of 4 ± 2.8 years (median = 3.5). Of the leads that malfunctioned, 62/80 (78%) were extracted and replaced with a new lead and in the other 18 cases, malfunctioned DF4 leads were abandoned, and a new lead implanted. In multivariable models, younger age at implant (OR 1.03 per year; P < 0.001) and the presence of Abbott/St. Jude leads increased the risk of malfunction.

CONCLUSION

DF4 defibrillator leads demonstrate excellent longevity with >98.3% of leads followed for at least 5 years still functioning normally. Younger age at implant and lead manufacturer are associated with an increased risk of DF4 lead malfunction. The differences in lead survival between manufacturers require further investigation.

Design and rationale of the MODULAR ATP global clinical trial: A novel intercommunicative leadless pacing system and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has demonstrated safety and efficacy for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. However, a limitation of the S-ICD lies in the inability to either pace-terminate ventricular tachycardia or provide prolonged bradycardia pacing support.

Objective

The rationale and design of a prospective, single-arm, multinational trial of an intercommunicative leadless pacing system integrated with the S-ICD will be presented.

Methods

A technical description of the modular cardiac rhythm management (mCRM) system (EMPOWER leadless pacemaker and EMBLEM S-ICD) and the implantation procedure is provided. MODULAR ATP (Effectiveness of the EMPOWER™ Modular Pacing System and EMBLEM™ Subcutaneous ICD to Communicate Antitachycardia Pacing) is a multicenter, international trial enrolling up to 300 patients at risk of sudden cardiac death at up to 60 centers trial design. The safety endpoint of freedom from major complications related to the mCRM system or implantation procedure at 6 months and 2 years are significantly higher than 86% and 81%, respectively, and all-cause survival is significantly >85% at 2 years.

Results

Efficacy endpoints are that at 6 months mCRM communication success is significantly higher than 88% and the percentage of subjects with low and stable thresholds is significantly higher than 80%. Substudies to evaluate rate-responsive features and performance of the pacing module are also described.

Conclusion

The MODULAR ATP global clinical trial will prospectively test the safety and efficacy of the first intercommunicating leadless pacing system with the S-ICD. This trial will allow for robust validation of device-device communication, pacing performance, rate responsiveness, and system safety.

Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator implantation - Iran SICD registry

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a relatively new alternative to the transvenous ICD system to minimize intravascular lead-related complications. This paper presents outcome of SICD implantation in patients enrolled in Iran S-ICD registry.

METHODS

Between October 2015 and June 2022, this prospective multicenter national registry included 223 patients with a standard indication for an ICD, who neither required bradycardia pacing nor needed cardiac resynchronization to evaluate the early post-implant complications and long-term follow-up results of the S-ICD system.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 45 ± 17 years. The majority (79.4%) were male. Ischemic cardiomyopathy (39.5%) was the most common underlying disorder among patients selected for S-ICD implant. Most study patients (68.6%) had ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Seven patients (3.1%) were found to have suboptimal lead positions. Six patients (2.7%) developed a pocket hematoma; all were managed medically. During a mean follow-up of 2 years, the appropriate therapy was recorded in 13% of the patients and inappropriate ICD intervention mainly due to supraventricular tachycardia in 8.9%. Pocket infection was observed in four patients (1.8%) and five patients (2.2%) died mainly due to heart failure.

CONCLUSION

S-ICDs were effective at detecting and treating both induced and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias. Major clinical complications were rare.

Riata lead failure manifests as electrical storm with lead parameters showing unique postural variations: a case report

Background

Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are prone to a unique type of mechanical lead failure causing conductor externalization (CE) which may be complicated by a delayed-onset electrical lead failure (ELF).

Case summary

A 60-year-old male with symptomatic, severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy, and atrial fibrillation following a prior anterior wall myocardial infarction received a dual-chamber ICD with 7F-RiataST ventricular lead as a primary prevention strategy against sudden cardiac death in 2008. In 2017, a pulse generator replacement was performed for elective replacement indicator status. At that time, CE was noted in the ventricular lead but the electrical lead parameters were normal, hence lead replacement was decided against and the patient was closely followed up thereafter. Four years later, the patient presented with multiple ICD shocks within 48 h. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interrogation showed noise on the ventricular electrogram (EGM) channel that was detected as ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes, triggering inappropriate ICD therapy (five ICD detected VF events within 24 h triggering three antitachycardia pacing therapies and one shock). Lead impedance and R-wave amplitude were within normal range in supine position but dramatically worsened in sitting posture. A new ventricular lead was implanted and the old lead abandoned. The patient has not experienced any device therapy in the follow-up period.

Discussion

An electrically inert CE of Riata ICD leads needs close follow-up because an ELF may occur even after several years. A careful analysis of EGMs including postural changes in lead parameters can aid in detection and better characterization of underlying electrical dysfunction following CE.

Long-term complications in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Real-world data from the extended ELISIR experience

BACKGROUND

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) because of the possibility of lead ruptures and accelerated battery depletion.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate device-related complications over time in a large real-world multicenter S-ICD cohort.

METHODS

Patients implanted with an S-ICD from January 2015 to June 2020 were enrolled from a 19-institution European registry (Experience from the Long-term Italian S-ICD registry [ELISIR]; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT0473876). Device-related complication rates over follow-up were collected. Last follow-up of patients was performed after the Boston Scientific recall issue.

RESULTS

A total of 1254 patients (median age 52.0 [interquartile range 41.0-62.2] years; 973 (77.6%) men; 387 (30.9%) ischemic) was enrolled. Over a follow-up of 23.2 (12.8-37.8) months, complications were observed in 117 patients (9.3%) for a total of 127 device-related complications (23.6% managed conservatively and 76.4% required reintervention). Twenty-seven patients (2.2%) had unanticipated generator replacement after 3.6 (3.3-3.9) years, while 4 (0.3%) had lead rupture. Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR] 1.063 [95% confidence interval 1.028-1.100]; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.960 [1.191-3.225]; P = .008), and oral anticoagulation (HR 1.437 [1.010-2.045]; P = .043) were associated with an increase in overall complications, whereas older age (HR 0.980 [0.967-0.994]; P = .007) and procedure performed in high-volume centers (HR 0.463 [0.300-0.715]; P = .001) were protective factors.

CONCLUSION

The overall complication rate over 23.2 months of follow-up in a multicenter S-ICD cohort was 9.3%. Early unanticipated device battery depletions occurred in 2.2% of patients, while lead fracture was observed in 0.3%, which is in line with the expected rates reported by Boston Scientific.

Increased incidence of electrical abnormalities in a pacemaker lead family

INTRODUCTION

Several recent studies have raised concern about noise detections on Tendril pacemaker leads, which may represent insulation failure or algorithm-driven overreporting of physiologic signals.

METHODS

We identified all pacemaker leads actively followed at Albany Medical Center, of which 1111 leads (262 Abbott Tendril, 576 Medtronic CapSure, 30 Fineline, 195 Ingevity, 48 Dextrus) in 703 patients were included in this observational study. Electrical abnormalities, comprising low-impedance measurements <200 Ω and repeated noise detections, were catalogued, as was initial management and subsequent need for surgical intervention.

RESULTS

During 54 months median follow-up (interquartile range 24-105), 63 leads (5.7%) demonstrated electrical abnormalities, including low impedances in 21 and noise in 59. Tendril leads manifested abnormalities most frequently (n = 50; 19.1%) compared with CapSure (n = 9; 1.6%), Fineline (n = 0), Ingevity (n = 0), and Dextrus (n = 4; 8.3%) leads. The risk of abnormalities was significantly higher in Tendril leads (HR 9.6, 95% CI 5.2-17.6; p < .001). Low impedances were measured on 19 Tendril leads, a significantly higher risk than on other leads (HR 23.8, 95% CI 5.5-102.1; p < .001). Although observation and reprogramming sensitivity were the initial management strategy for 45 and 7 leads, respectively, 18 ultimately required surgical intervention, including 15 Tendrils. No electrical abnormalities were observed in 12 non-Tendril leads attached to Abbott devices compared with 48 of 252 Tendrils attached to Abbott devices (log-rank p = .035).

CONCLUSION

Tendril leads demonstrate significantly higher risk of repeated low impedances and noise compared to other manufacturers' models, raising concern that these findings reflect early insulation failure. Increased scrutiny is warranted.

Management and long-term outcomes associated with recalled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

No comparative study of outcomes in Riata and Sprint Fidelis leads undergoing lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment (LA), and generator change only (GC) has been published.

OBJECTIVES

Determine outcomes (major complications [MC]; death, extended hospitalization, or rehospitalization within 60 days [RH]; lead malfunction) of LE, LA, and GC for recalled leads.

METHODS

Retrospective, multicenter, comparative study.

RESULTS

A total of 298 LE, 85 LA, and 310 GC were performed. In the clinical setting of a lead intervention, there was no difference in a composite of MC, death, RH, lead revision, inappropriate shocks, or device infection between LE and LA groups (15% vs 22%, P = .140). In the clinical setting of a device at elective replacement interval (ERI), there were significantly more acute events at 60 days (MC, death, and RH) in the LE and LA groups at 15.4% (4) and 15.4% (4), and this was significantly (P = .017) higher than the GC group at 5.1% (16). There was no difference (P = 1.000) in the composite of MC, death, RH, lead malfunction, lead revisions, device infections, or inappropriate shocks between LE, LA, and GC groups at 15.4% (4), 15.4% (4), and 17.4% (54), respectively. Following generator change, 14 of 175 Fidelis leads and 3 of 135 Riata leads failed over a total of 12,714 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The failure rate of recalled leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. It may be prudent to perform generator change only when the device is at ERI, especially when the recalled lead has historical performance that likely outweighs the risks of extraction/abandonment.

Active Surveillance of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry for Defibrillator Lead Failures

BACKGROUND

Several defibrillator leads have been recalled due to early lead failure leading to significant patient harm. Confirming the safety of contemporary defibrillator leads is essential to optimizing treatment for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We therefore sought to assess the comparative long-term safety of the 4 most commonly implanted ICD leads within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A propensity-matched survival analysis of the ICD Registry was performed evaluating 4 contemporary ICD leads in patients receiving an ICD system for the first time. All patients in the ICD Registry aged ≥18 years who underwent an implant of an ICD between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016 were included. Monitoring of safety began with ICD implant and continued up to 5 years. A meaningful difference in ICD failure rate was defined as twice (or more) the lead failure rate observed in the propensity-matched comparator patients. Among the 374 132 patients who received a new ICD implant, no safety alerts were triggered for the primary safety end point of lead failure for any of the high energy leads studied. Estimated rates of freedom from lead failure at 5 years ranged from 97.7% to 98.9% for the 4 high-energy leads of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Though limited by incomplete long-term outcomes ascertainment, active surveillance of the ICD Registry suggests that there were no meaningful differences in the rate of ICD high-energy lead survival for the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads.

Contemporary benefit-harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD-therapy

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implemented into clinical routine more than 20 years ago. Since then, ICD therapy became standard therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

Aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit-harm profile of contemporary primary prophylactic ICD therapy.

METHODS

A total of 1222 consecutive patients of a prospective single-center ICD-registry were analyzed who underwent primary prophylactic ICD implantation between 2000 and 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the implantation year: 2010-2017 (group 1, n = 579) and 2000-2009 (group 2, n = 643).

RESULTS

The rate of estimated appropriate ICD therapy after 8 years was 51% in the 2000s and 42% in the 2010s (P < .001). The complication rate changed slightly from 53% to 47% (P = .005). This decline was mainly driven by the reduction of inappropriate ICD shocks (30% vs 14%, P < .001) whereas the rate of ICD shock lead malfunction and device/ lead infection remained unchanged over time. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy was an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.77).

CONCLUSION

The ICD therapy rate for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with primary prophylactic ICD implantation is decreasing over the last two decades. Complication rate remains high due to an unchanged rate of ICD shock malfunctions and device infections. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy in primary prophylactic ICD-therapy.

Overview of Lead Management

Lead management describes a comprehensive approach to cardiac implantable electronic device lead utilization, encompassing lead and device selection, vascular access, implant techniques, handling lead failures and recalls, managing infectious and other complications, and performing device and lead extraction. Device and lead selection should be based on the latest guidelines and the available data to choose the optimal device system for each patient. Lead extraction is a highly specialized procedure and should be carried out by a team of personnel extensively trained in the procedure at centers with cardiac surgical support.

Long-term performance of a pacing lead family: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The performance of Abbott/St. Jude Medical (Sylmar CA) Tendril pacing leads has not been well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the performance of Tendril leads as compared with that of different pacing leads.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients implanted with the following leads: Tendril leads 1888 TC, 2088 TC, and 1688 TC, Medtronic (Fridely, MN) 4076 CapSureFix Novus, and Boston Scientific (Natick, MA) FINELINE II Sterox Pacing EZ leads (models 4469, 4470, and 4471). The primary end point was the incidence of lead malfunction assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 9782 leads were implanted, including 8512 Tendril leads, 731 Medtronic 4076 CapSureFix Novus leads, and 539 FINELINE II leads. A total of 540 leads (5.5%) malfunctioned during a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.9 years. Lead malfunction manifested predominantly as noise and/or low impedance (95%). Lead malfunction rates were significantly higher at 5 years for Tendril vs non-Tendril leads (7.0% vs 2.1%; P < .001). The highest rate of failure at 5 years was seen in the Tendril 1888 TC leads (9.9%), followed by Tendril 1688 (5.7%) and Tendril 2088 (5.2%) leads. In contrast, malfunction rates were significantly lower for the Medtronic 4076 (2.6%) and FINELINE II (1.7%) leads. During follow-up to 10 years, the incidence of lead malfunction for Optim-insulated Tendril leads (models 1888 TC and 2088 TC) was significantly higher than that for the non-Optim-insulated Tendril 1688 TC lead (24.5% vs 7.1%) (P = .008).

CONCLUSION

Tendril leads appear to have a higher rate of malfunction than do comparator leads. Optim insulation may partly explain the higher failure rate.

What physicians do in case of a failure of the pace-sense part of a defibrillation lead : Survey in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

BACKGROUND

The possible treatment strategies for defects of the pace-sense (P/S) part of a defibrillation lead are either implantation of a new high-voltage (HV)-P/S lead, with or without extraction of the malfunctioning lead, or implantation of a P/S lead.

METHODS

We conducted a Web-based survey across cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) centers to investigate their procedural practice and decision-making process in cases of failure of the P/S portion of defibrillation leads. In particular, we focused on the question of whether the integrity of the HV circuit is confirmed by a test shock before decision-making. The questionnaire included 14 questions and was sent to 951 German, 341 Austrian, and 120 Swiss centers.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 183 of the 1412 centers surveyed (12.7% response rate). Most centers (90.2%) do not conduct a test shock to confirm the integrity of the HV circuit before decision-making. Procedural practice in lead management varies depending on the presentation of lead failure and whether the center applies a test shock. In centers that do not conduct a test shock, the majority (69.9%) implant a new HV-P/S lead. Most centers (61.7%) that test the integrity of the HV system implant a P/S lead. The majority of centers favor DF-4 connectors (74.1%) over DF-1 connectors (25.9%) at first CIED implantation.

CONCLUSION

Either implanting a new HV-P/S lead or placing an additional P/S lead are selected strategies if the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure is localized to the P/S portion. However, conducting a test shock to confirm the integrity of the HV component is rarely performed.

Effect of Applied Potential on Fatigue Life of Electropolished Nitinol Wires

Nitinol is used as a metallic biomaterial in medical devices due to its shape memory and pseudoelastic properties. The clinical performance of nitinol depends on factors which include the surface finish, the local environment, and the mechanical loads to which the device is subjected. Preclinical evaluations of device durability are performed with fatigue tests while electrochemical characterization methods such as ASTM F2129 are employed to evaluate corrosion susceptibility by determining the rest potential and breakdown potential. However, it is well established that the rest potential of a metal surface can vary with the local environment. Very little is known regarding the influence of voltage on fatigue life of nitinol. In this study, we developed a fatigue testing method in which an electrochemical system was integrated with a rotary bend wire fatigue tester. Samples were fatigued at various strain levels at electropotentials anodic and cathodic to the rest potential to determine if it could influence fatigue life. Wires at potentials negative to the rest potential had a significantly higher number of cycles to fracture than wires held at potentials above the breakdown potential. For wires for which no potential was applied, they had fatigue life similar to wires at negative potentials.

Riata silicone defibrillation lead with normal electrical measures at routine ambulatory check: The role of high-voltage shock testing

AIM

To describe our experience with shock testing for the evaluation of patients with Riata™ leads.

METHODS

Among 51 patients with normal baseline electrical parameters, 20 died during follow-up. Of the remaining 31 patients, 15 underwent the test: In 10 cases a defibrillation testing with ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction and in 5 cases a R-wave-synchronized shock (> 20 J, without inducing VF). The test was performed under sedation with Midazolam.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (80%) had a normal behavior during shock testing: In 8 cases induced VF was correctly detected and treated; in 4 cases of R-wave-synchronized shock electrical parameters remained stable and normal. Three patients (20%) failed the test. One patient with externalized conductors showed a sudden drop of high-voltage impedance (< 10 Ohm) after a 25 J R-wave-synchronized shock. Two other patients with externalized conductors, undergoing defibrillation testing, showed a short-circuit during shock delivery and the implantable cardioverter defibrillator was unable to interrupt VF.

CONCLUSION

In Riata™ leads the delivery of a low current during routine measurement of high-voltage impedance may not reveal a small short circuit, that can only be evident by attempting to deliver a true shock, either for spontaneous arrhythmias or in the context of a shock testing.

Canadian Registry of Implantable Electronic Device Outcomes

Background—

The Riata lead under advisory has posed a unique clinical scenario where inside-out abrasion results in externalization of conductor cables, with a higher risk of electrical failure. We developed a comprehensive registry to assist with clinical management of this lead.

Methods and Results—

This Canadian registry reports the findings of 3763 (74.2% of all Riata leads in Canada) Riata leads under advisory, with a mean follow-up time of 8.9±1.5 years. The overall electrical failure rate was 5.2% at 8 years, with no difference between 7-French and 8-French lead models. Cable externalization was found to be more common in the 8-French model (12.3% versus 5.2%, P <0.0001) and was associated with a higher risk of electrical failure. Predictors of electrical lead failure included cable externalization, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, higher body mass index, and a passive fixation lead. One patient died due to electrical failure, a further 2 patients survived an event where the device failed to deliver high-voltage therapy. Major complications because of lead extraction were higher when compared with lead abandonment, no difference among lead model observed. Two deaths occurred as a consequence of lead extraction, in the context of an underlying infection.

Conclusions—

The Riata lead under advisory has a steady electrical failure rate over time. There are identifiable predictors of lead failure that can assist with clinical decisions as to whether lead revision should be performed prophylactically.

Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Lead Failure and Management

The implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead is the most vulnerable component of the ICD system. Despite advanced engineering design, sophisticated manufacturing techniques, and extensive bench, pre-clinical, and clinical testing, lead failure (LF) remains the Achilles' heel of the ICD system. ICD LF has a broad range of adverse outcomes, ranging from intermittent inappropriate pacing to proarrhythmia leading to patient mortality. ICD LF is often considered in the context of design or construction defects, but is more appropriately considered in the context of the finite service life of a mechanical component placed in chemically stressful environment and subjected to continuous mechanical stresses. This clinical review summarizes LF mechanisms, assessment, and differential diagnosis of LF, including lead diagnostics, recent prominent lead recalls, and management of LF and functioning, but recalled leads. Despite recent advances in lead technology, physicians will likely continue to need to understand how to manage patients with transvenous ICD leads.

Long-Term Evaluation of Biotronik Linox and Linox(smart) Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads

INTRODUCTION

Expert consensus holds that post-market, systematic surveillance of ICD leads is essential to ensure confirmation of adequate lead performance. GALAXY (NCT00836589) and CELESTIAL (NCT00810264) are ongoing multicenter, prospective, non-randomized registries conducted to confirm the long-term safety and reliability of Biotronik leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ICD and CRT-D patients are followed for Linox and Linox(smart) ICD lead performance and safety for 5 years post-implant. All procedural and system-related adverse events (AEs) were assessed at each follow-up, along with lead electrical parameters. An independent CEC of EPs adjudicated AEs to determine AE category and lead relatedness. The analysis used categories of lead observations per ISO 5841-2 (Third edition). A total of 3,933 leads were implanted in 3,840 patients (73.0% male, mean age 67.0 ± 12.2 years) at 146 US centers. The estimated cumulative survival probability was 96.3% at 5 years after implant for Linox leads and 96.6% at 4 years after implant for Linox(smart) leads. A comparison of the Linox and Linox(smart) survival functions did not find evidence of a difference (P = 0.2155). The most common AEs were oversensing (23, 0.58%), conductor fracture (14, 0.36%), failure to capture (13, 0.33%), lead dislodgement (12, 0.31%), insulation breach (10, 0.25%), and abnormal pacing impedance (8, 0.20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Linox and Linox(smart) ICD leads are safe, reliable and infrequently associated with lead-related AEs. Additionally, estimated cumulative survival probability is clinically acceptable and well within industry standards. Ongoing data collection will confirm the longer-term safety and performance of the Linox family of ICD leads.

Transvenous Lead Extraction via the Inferior Approach Using a Gooseneck Snare versus Simple Manual Traction

Background and Objectives

The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices needing lead extraction is increasing for various reasons, including infections, vascular obstruction, and lead failure. We report our experience with transvenous extraction of pacemaker and defibrillator leads via the inferior approach of using a gooseneck snare as a first-line therapy and compare extraction using a gooseneck snare with extraction using simple manual traction.

Subjects and Methods

The study included 23 consecutive patients (43 leads) who underwent transvenous lead extraction using a gooseneck snare (group A) and 10 consecutive patients (17 leads) who underwent lead extraction using simple manual traction (group B). Patient characteristics, indications, and outcomes were analyzed and compared between the groups.

Results

The dwelling time of the leads was longer in group A (median, 121) than in group B (median, 56; p=0.000). No differences were noted in the overall procedural success rate (69.6% vs. 70%), clinical procedural success rate (82.6% vs. 90%), and lead clinical success rate (86% vs. 94.1%) between the groups. The procedural success rates according to lead type were 89.2% and 100% for pacing leads and 66.7% and 83.3% for defibrillator leads in groups A and B, respectively. Major complications were noted in 3 (mortality in 1) patients in group A and 2 patients in group B.

Conclusion

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker leads via an inferior approach using a gooseneck snare was both safe and effective. However, stand-alone transvenous extraction of defibrillator leads using the inferior approach was suboptimal.

Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Lead Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in clinical practice, concerns exist regarding ICD lead durability. The performance of specific lead designs and factors determining this in large populations need clarification.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched for studies including ≥2 of the most commonly implanted leads. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. Seventeen studies were selected, including a total of 49 871 patients-5538 implanted with Durata (St. Jude Medical Inc), 10 605 with Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific), 16 119 with Sprint Quattro (Medtronic Corp), 11 709 with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic Corp), and 5900 with Riata (St. Jude Medical Inc)-with follow-up of 136 509 lead-years. Although the Durata lead presented a numerically higher rate, no statistically significant differences in the mean incidence of lead failure (0.29%-0.45% per year) were observed in comparison of the 3 nonrecalled leads. A higher event rate was documented with the Riata (1.0% per-year increase) and Sprint Fidelis (>2.0% per-year increase) leads compared with nonrecalled leads. An indication of increased incidence of Durata lead failure versus Sprint Quattro and Endotak Reliance leads was observed in 1 of 3 included studies, allowing for comparison of purely electrical lead failure, but this requires further evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotak Reliance (8F), Sprint Quattro (8F), and Durata (7F) leads displayed low annual incidence of failure; however, long-term follow-up data are still scarce. More data are needed to clarify the performance and safety of the Durata lead.

Remote monitoring of implantable devices: Should we continue to ignore it?

The number of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is increasing. In addition to improve survival, ICD can collect data related to device function and physiological parameters. Remote monitoring (RM) of these data allows early detection of technical or clinical problems and a prompt intervention (reprogramming device or therapy adjustment) before the patient require hospitalization. RM is not a substitute for emergency service and its consultation is now limited during working hours. Thus, a consent form is required to inform patients about benefits and limitations. The available studies indicate that remote monitoring is more effective than traditional calendar face to face based encounters. RM is safe, highly reliable, cost efficient, allows quick reply to failures, and reduces the number of scheduled visits and the incidence of inappropriate shocks with a positive impact on survival. It follows that RM has the credentials to be the standard of care for ICD management; however, unfortunately, there is a delay in physician acceptance and implementation. The recent observations from randomized IN-TIME study that showed a clear survival benefit with RM in heart failure patients have encouraged us to review both the negative and positive aspects of RM collected in a little more than a decade.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator harm in young patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of inappropriate shocks and complications

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are implanted with the intention to prolong life in selected patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes, but ICD implantation is also associated with inappropriate shocks and complications.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to quantify the rate of inappropriate shocks and other ICD-related complications to be able to weigh benefit and harm in these patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of inappropriate shock and/or other ICD-related complication rates, including ICD-related mortality, in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes, that is, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia, Brugada syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy due to a mutation in the lamin A/C gene, long QT syndrome, and short QT syndrome. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to May 30, 2014.

RESULTS

Of 2471 unique citations, 63 studies comprising 4916 patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes (mean age of 39 ± 15 years) were included. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 20% of patients (crude annual rate of 4.7% per year), with a significantly higher rate in studies published before 2008 (6.1% per year vs 4.1% per year). Moreover, 22% experienced ICD-related complications (4.4% per year) and there was a 0.5% ICD-related mortality (0.08% per year).

CONCLUSION

ICD implantation carries a significant risk of inappropriate shocks and inhospital and postdischarge complications in relatively young patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes. These data can be used to better inform patients and physicians about the expected risk of adverse ICD events and thereby facilitate shared decision making.

ICD lead failure detection in chronic soaked leads

Abrasion-induced insulation breach is a common failure mode of silicone-body, transvenous, implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads. It is caused either by external compression or internal motion of conducting cables. The present method of monitoring lead integrity measures low frequency conductor impedance. It cannot detect insulation failures until both the silicone lead body and inner fluoropolymer insulation have been breached completely, exposing conductors directly to blood or tissue. Even then the resistance changes are usually swamped by the baseline values. Thus the first clinical presentation may be either failure to deliver a life-saving shock or painful, inappropriate shocks in normal rhythm. We have previously presented a method for identifying early lead failure based on high frequency transmission line impedance measurements. That work used fresh leads in a liquid simulation bath; we have now demonstrated similar effects in leads soaked for 32 days and hence with saline-saturated silicone lead bodies.

Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead reliability: implications for postmarket surveillance

Background

As implantable cardioverter-defibrillator technology evolves, clinicians and patients need reliable performance data on current transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems. In addition, real-world reliability data could inform postmarket surveillance strategies directed by regulators and manufacturers.

Methods and Results

We evaluated Medtronic Sprint Quattro, Boston Scientific Endotak, and St Jude Medical Durata and Riata ST Optim leads implanted by participating center physicians between January 1, 2006 and September 1, 2012. Our analytic sample of 2653 patients (median age 65, male 73%) included 445 St Jude, 1819 Medtronic, and 389 Boston Scientific leads. After a median of 3.2 years, lead failure was 0.28% per year (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.43), with no statistically significant difference among manufacturers. Simulations based on these results suggest that detecting performance differences among generally safe leads would require nearly 10 000 patients or very long follow-up.

Conclusions

Currently marketed implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads rarely fail, which may be reassuring to clinicians advising patients about risks and benefits of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems. Regulators should consider the sample size implications when designing comparative effectiveness studies and evaluating new technology for preventing sudden cardiac death.

ICD lead failure detection through high frequency impedance

Abrasion-induced insulation breach is a common failure mode of silicone-body, transvenous, implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads. It is caused either by external compression or internal motion of conducting cables. The present method of monitoring lead integrity measures low frequency conductor impedance. It cannot detect insulation failures until both the silicone lead body and inner fluoropolymer insulation have been breached completely, exposing conductors directly to blood or tissue. Thus the first clinical presentation may be either failure to deliver a life-saving shock or painful, inappropriate shocks in normal rhythm. We present a new method for identifying lead failure based on high frequency impedance measurements. This method was evaluated in 3D electromagnetic simulation and bench testing to identify insulation defects in the St. Jude Medical Riata® lead, which is prone to insulation breach.

Insight into the mechanism of failure of the Riata lead under advisory

BACKGROUND

Cable externalization and insulation abrasion are known to occur with the St Jude Medical Riata leads under advisory. The distribution of these abnormalities and how they relate to clinical presentation have not been well described.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we sought to determine the relationship between structural lead failure and clinical presentation by using the analysis of returned Riata products in Canada.

METHODS

The analyses of returned Riata products in Canada were obtained from St Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA. These data were correlated with the clinical presentation of patients just before lead removal from service.

RESULTS

As of May 1, 2013, there were 263 returned Riata leads in Canada. Of these, 43 (16.8%) were found to have insulation abrasion that was due to either lead-can or lead-other device interaction (70%) or inside-out abrasion (27.9%). The predilection of lead-to-can abrasion was seen in the Riata 7-F leads (84.2% vs 58.4%; P = .07), while inside-out abrasion was more common in the Riata 8-F leads (37.5% vs 15.8%; P = .12). Electrical abnormalities were frequent (20 of 31 [65.4%]) and most often due to electrical noise (45.2%), although inappropriate shocks were present (25.8%). Death occurred in 1 of 43 (2.3%) of those patients with an insulation defect in the lead-can abrasion group.

CONCLUSION

Lead-can abrasion is the most common form of insulation defect in the Riata group of leads under advisory. Management of this group of leads under advisory should not neglect the issue of lead-can abrasion, in addition to detection of cable externalization.