Utilization trends and clinical outcomes in patients implanted with a single- vs a dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead: Insights from the ALTITUDE Study

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

Radiographic predictors of failure of simple manual traction of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Extraction of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads could be a difficult procedure due to fibrous tissue around the lead and anatomical variations. In this report, we present our experience in the radiographic predictors of failure of simple manual traction (SMT) in patients with dual-coil ICD requiring lead extraction (LE).

METHODS

Between January 2017 and February 2021, 103 leads were removed in 65 consecutive patients; 65 (63.1%) were dual-coil ICD leads, 22 (21.4%) were atrial, and 16 (15.5%) were coronary sinus leads. Patient-based and procedural data were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Clinical and procedural characteristics were compared and radiographic predictors of failure of SMT of ICD leads were assessed. Projected anteroposterior (AP) lead tortuosity was measured and lead slack score was estimated on chest X-ray (CXR).

RESULTS

Simple manual traction failed in 27 (42%) of the ICD leads. Ottawa slack score (odds ratio [OR] 2.368, 95% CI [1.261-4.447]; P = 0.007), AP lead tortuosity > 1.10 (OR 7.477, 95% CI [1.718-35.542]; P = 0.007), and number of previous interventions (OR 6.016, 95% CI [1.184-30.557]; P < 0.030) were found to be independently related to the failure of SMT. Receiver-operator characteristic curve analysis yielded an AP lead tortuosity cutoff value of > 1.10 for predicting the failure of SMT. The area under the curve was 0.744; the 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.617 to 0.871 (P = 0.001), with a sensitivity of 63% and a specificity of 73%.

CONCLUSION

Simple manual traction success in our study varied based on radiographic lead-related parameters. Before planning the procedure, increased AP lead tortuosity in vasculature and higher lead slack score can be easily determined on CXR and may be associated with more fibrous adherences, the complexity of the LE, and failure of SMT.

Mechanical extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads with a dwell time of more than 10 years: insights from a single high-volume centre

AIMS

To analyze and compare the effectiveness and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads with a dwell time of >10 years (Group A) vs. younger leads (Group B) using mechanical extraction systems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between October 2011 and July 2022, we performed TLE in 318 patients. Forty-six (14.4%) extracted ICD leads in 46 (14.5%) patients that had been implanted for >10 years. The median dwell time of all extracted ICD leads was 5.9 years. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 31.8% of patients. Complete ICD leads removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (95.7% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056% and 95.6% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056, respectively). We did not find a significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (6.5% in Group A vs. 1.5% in Group B and 2.2% in Group A vs. 1.8% in Group B, P = 0.082, respectively). One death associated with the TLE procedure was recorded in Group B.

CONCLUSION

The TLE procedures involving the extraction of old ICD leads were effective and safe. The outcomes of ICD lead removal with a dwell time of >10 years did not differ significantly compared with younger ICD leads. However, extraction of older ICD leads required more frequent necessity for utilizing multiple extraction tools, more experience and versatility of the operator, and increased surgery costs.

Ethical and Legal Implications of Remote Monitoring of Medical Devices

Policy Points Millions of life-sustaining implantable devices collect and relay massive amounts of digital health data, increasingly by using user-downloaded smartphone applications to facilitate data relay to clinicians via manufacturer servers. Our analysis of health privacy laws indicates that most US patients may have little access to their own digital health data in the United States under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, whereas the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act grant greater access to device-collected data. Our normative analysis argues for consistently granting patients access to the raw data collected by their implantable devices.

CONTEXT

Millions of life-sustaining implantable devices collect and relay massive amounts of digital health data, increasingly by using user-downloaded smartphone applications to facilitate data relay to clinicians via manufacturer servers. Whether patients have either legal or normative claims to data collected by these devices, particularly in the raw, granular format beyond that summarized in their medical records, remains incompletely explored.

METHODS

Using pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) as a clinical model, we outline the clinical ecosystem of data collection, relay, retrieval, and documentation. We consider the legal implications of US and European privacy regulations for patient access to either summary or raw device data. Lastly, we evaluate ethical arguments for or against providing patients access to data beyond the summaries presented in medical records.

FINDINGS

Our analysis of applicable health privacy laws indicates that US patients may have little access to their raw data collected and held by device manufacturers in the United States under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, whereas the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) grants greater access to device-collected data when the processing of personal data falls under the GDPR's territorial scope. The California Consumer Privacy Act, the "little sister" of the GDPR, also grants greater rights to California residents. By contrast, our normative analysis argues for consistently granting patients access to the raw data collected by their implantable devices. Smartphone applications are increasingly involved in the collection, relay, retrieval, and documentation of these data. Therefore, we argue that smartphone user agreements are an emerging but potentially underutilized opportunity for clarifying both legal and ethical claims for device-derived data.

CONCLUSIONS

Current health privacy legislation incompletely supports patients' normative claims for access to digital health data.

Randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of internal (through implantable cardioverter defibrillator) versus external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

When patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) develop symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), external direct current cardioversion (EDCCV), as well as internal cardioversion using their ICD, are the options available. It is currently unknown which of these two methods are more effective. We compared the effectiveness of EDCCV versus internal cardioversion to terminate AF in patients with a single-coil ICD.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrial.gov NCT03164395) enrolled consecutive patients with a single-coil ICD that presented with symptomatic AF of less than 1-year duration. They received either the maximum energy internal shock through the ICD or an EDCCV using transcutaneous pads of 200 J. The primary endpoint was a successful conversion to sinus rhythm after one shock. Crossover was permitted if the first shock was unsuccessful.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were enrolled in the study, including 16 in the internal ICD cardioversion group. The study included patients with a mean age of 59.5 ± 16.0 years, 41.9% females, median AF duration 1 month (interquartile range 1-3), 45.2% non-ischemic cardiomyopathies, mean EF 28.6 ± 16.0%, and 45.2% biventricular ICD. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between the two groups. In the internal cardioversion group, 5/16 patients (31.3%) met the primary endpoint versus 14/15 (93.3%) in the EDCCV group, p < 0.001. All patients that failed the first shock were subsequently cardioverted externally.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with a single-coil ICD and symptomatic AF of less than 1 year, external direct current cardioversion is much more effective than internal shock through the ICD.

Effectiveness and safety of transvenous extraction of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads at single-center experience

The available literature lacks data concerning direct comparison of the effectiveness and safety of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads transvenous extraction. Certainly, additional shocking coil in superior vena cava adds to the amount of metal in the vascular system. Adhesions developing around the superior vena cava coil add to the difficulty of extraction of ICD lead if lead removal is required. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single- and dual-coil ICD leads transvenous extraction using mechanical systems. We performed transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of 197 ICD leads in 196 patients. There were 46 (23.3%) dual-coil leads removed from 46 (23.5%) patients. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 25.0% of patients. The following extracting techniques were used: manual direct traction, mechanical telescopic sheaths, controlled-rotation mechanical sheaths, and femoral approach. Complete ICD lead removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = .41 and 99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = 0.41, respectively). We did not find significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (2.0% in single-coil vs 4.3% in dual-coil, and 0.7% in single-coil vs 0.0% in dual-coil, P = .58, respectively). There was 1 death associated with the TLE procedure of single-coil lead.This study shows that extraction of dual-coil leads seems to be comparably safe and effective to extraction of single-coil leads. On the other hand, it requires longer fluoroscopy time and frequent utilization of advanced tools.

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates.

CONCLUSION

In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry

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.

Should Single-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads Be Used in all Patients?

The historical preference for dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads stems from high defibrillation thresholds associated with old device platforms. The high safety margins generated by contemporary devices have rendered the modest difference in defibrillation efficacy between single- and dual-coil leads clinically insignificant. Cohort data demonstrating worse lead extraction outcomes and higher all-cause mortality have brought the incremental utility of an superior vena cava coil into question. This article summarizes the current literature and re-evaluates the utility of dual-coil leads in the context of modern device technology.

Digital monitoring and care: Virtual medicine

Remote digital health monitoring technologies can be synergistically organized to create a virtual medical system providing more continuous care centered on the patient rather than the bricks and mortar medical complex. Utilization of the digitalized patient health monitoring can facilitate diagnosis, treatment plans, physician-patient interaction, and accelerate the progress of medical research, education, and training. The field of cardiac electrophysiology has been an early adopter of this shift in care and serves as a paradigm applicable to all areas of medicine. The overall impact of this remote virtual care model on the quality of medical care and patient experience requires greater study, as well as vigilance as to the differences between technology and care in order to preserve the intangible and immeasurable factors that bring humanity to the art and science of medicine.

Risk Factors for Inadequate Defibrillation Safety Margins Vary With the Underlying Cardiac Disease: Implications for Selective Testing Strategies

INTRODUCTION

In view of the shift from routine toward no or selective defibrillation testing, optimization of the current risk stratification for inadequate defibrillation safety margins (DSMs) could improve individualized testing decisions. Given the pathophysiological differences in myocardial substrate between ischemic and nonischemic heart disease (IHD/non-IHD) and the accompanying differences in clinical characteristics, we studied inadequate DSMs and their predictors in relation to the underlying etiology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cohort of routine defibrillation tests (n = 785) after first implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-implantations at the Radboud UMC (2005-2014). A defibrillation threshold >25 J was regarded as an inadequate DSM. In total, 4.3% of patients had an inadequate DSM; in IHD 2.5% versus 7.3% in non-IHD (P = 0.002). We identified a group of non-IHD patients at high risk (13-42% inadequate DSM); the remainder of the cohort (>70%) had a risk of only 2% (C-statistic entire cohort 0.74; C-statistic non-IHD 0.82). This was based upon two identified interaction terms: (1) non-IHD and age (aOR 0.94 [95% CI 0.91-0.97]); (2) non-IHD and the indexed left ventricular (LV) internal diastolic diameter (aOR 3.50 [95% CI 2.10-5.82]).

CONCLUSION

The present study on risk stratification for an inadequate DSM not only confirms the importance of making a distinction between IHD and non-IHD, but also shows that risk factors in an entire cohort (LV dilatation, age) may only apply to a subgroup (non-IHD). Appreciation of this concept could favorably affect current risk stratification. If confirmed, our approach may be used to optimize individualized testing decisions in an upcoming era of non-routine testing.

[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.