Sprint fidelis defibrillation lead: a nine-center experience in Spain. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64:312-318. [PMID: 21377260 DOI: 10.1016/j.recesp.2010.11.008]

Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Many of the complications arising from cardiac device implantation are associated to the venous access used for lead placement. Previous analyses reported that cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) is safer but less effective than subclavian vein puncture (SVP). However, comparisons between these techniques and axillary vein puncture (AVP) -guided either by ultrasound or fluoroscopy- are lacking. Thus, we aimed to compare safety and efficacy of these approaches.

METHODS

We searched for articles assessing at least two different approaches regarding the incidence of pneumothorax and/ or lead failure (LF). When available, bleeding and infectious complications as well as procedural success were analyzed. A frequentist random effects network meta-analysis model was adopted.

RESULTS

36 studies were analyzed. Most articles assessed SVP versus CVC. Compared to SVP, both CVC and AVP were associated with reduced odds of pneumothorax (OR: 0.193, 95%CI: 0.136-0.275 and OR: 0.128, 95%CI: 0.050- 0.329; respectively) and LF (OR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.406-0.976 and OR: 0.425, 95%CI: 0.286-0.632; respectively). No significant differences between AVP and CVC were demonstrated. Limited data suggest no major impact of different approaches on infectious and bleeding complications. Initial CVC approach required significantly more often an alternate/ additional venous access for lead placement, compared to both AVP and SVP. No differences between these two were identified.

CONCLUSION

Both AVP and CVC seem to decrease incident pneumothorax and LF, compared to SVP. Initial AVP approach seems to decrease the need of alternate venous access, compared to CVC. These results suggest that AVP should be further clinically tested. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® lead history revisited-Extended follow-up of passive leads

BACKGROUND

Due to high failure rates, Medtronic withdrew the Sprint Fidelis lead (SFL) from the market. Passive fixation lead models exhibited better survival than active models, but most studies have limited follow-up. Aim of this study was to give insights into passive lead survival with a follow-up of 10 years.

METHODS

In two large Swiss centers, patients with passive SFLs were identified and data from routine implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-ups were collected. Patients were censored at time of death, last device interrogation (if lost to follow-up), time of lead revision (in non-SFL-related problems), or at database closure (31th December 2017). We defined lead failure as any of the following: lead fracture with inappropriate discharge; sudden increase in low-voltage impedance to >1500 or high-voltage impedance to >100 Ω; >300 nonphysiological short VV-intervals.

RESULTS

We identified 145 patients. Age at implant was 60 ± 12 years with a median follow-up of 10.2 (interquartile range [IQR]: 5.0-11.2) years. Thirty-five percent of patients died after 5.4 ± 2.7 years. A total of 19 leads (13%) failed after 6.7 ± 3.2 years (range: 1.2-12.0). Overt malfunction with shocks existed in four patients (3%). Cumulative lead survival was 93.1% at 6, 88.2% at 8, 83.8% at 10, and 77.6% at 11 years, respectively, with 35% of implanted leads under monitoring at 10 years. Lead survival fits best a Weibull distribution with accelerating failure rates (k = 1.95, 95% CI 1.32-2.87, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

During very long-term follow-up, failure rate of the passive SFL shows an increase resulting in an impaired lead survival of 84% at 10 years.

Complete right bundle branch block and QRS-T discordance can be the initial clue to detect S-ICD ineligibility

BACKGROUND

In order to minimize inappropriate shocks of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD), it is important to recognize who is suitable for S-ICD indication. This study aimed to clarify what types of cardiac disease are likely to fulfill the S-ICD screening criteria and ineligible factors for S-ICD in the standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG).

METHODS

A total of 348 patients with heart disease were enrolled. They were assessed by supine and standing ECG recording to simulate the 3 S-ICD sensing vectors and standard 12-lead ECG, simultaneously. Clinical and ECG characteristics were analyzed to compare the patients who are eligible and ineligible with S-ICD screening ECG indication.

RESULTS

The mean age of study patients was 49±21 years and 244 (70%) were men. Nineteen percent of patients were unsuitable for S-ICD. There was no significant difference in ineligibility for S-ICD among cardiac diseases (p=0.48). Univariate analysis showed complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB), QRS-T discordance in lead II, and QRS-T discordance in 3 leads (I, II, and aVF) were more frequent in patients who were ineligible for S-ICD than in the eligible group. Multivariate regression analysis showed CRBBB and QRS-T discordance in 3 leads were independent predictors for ineligibility of S-ICD.

CONCLUSION

There are no differences in eligibility of S-ICD among types of cardiac diseases. CRBBB and QRS-T discordance were independent predictors for ineligibility.

Very late follow-up of a passive defibrillator lead under recall: do failure rates increase during long-term observation

BACKGROUND

The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead (SFL; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) has a significantly impaired long-term survival, and active fixation leads fare worse than passive leads. The goal of this study was to present data of a series of passive SFL only with very long mean follow-up of more than 6 years.

METHODS

Patients in whom a passive SFL was implanted in two large Swiss centers were followed. We excluded eight (5.5%) patients with a follow-up of <6 months. Patients who died or were lost during follow-up were censored at death or last device check, all others on January 31, 2014. We employed two different definitions of failure: strict = fracture with inappropriate discharge; sudden increase in impedance >1,500 or high-voltage impedance >100 Ohm; >300 nonphysiological short interventricular-intervals. Lenient = any of the above plus a linear increase in impedance >1,500 Ohm or a linear decrease in sensing to a level that treating cardiologists considered inappropriate.

RESULTS

We included 137 patients. Age was 60 ± 12 years. Mean and median follow-up were 6.2 ± 2.1 and 6.8 (interquartile range 4.8-7.8) years. Applying the strict definition, 12 leads (8.8%) were replaced after 4.9 ± 2.4 years (range 1.2-8.1). Applying the lenient definition, 14 leads (10.2%) failed. Cumulative lead survival was 98.5% at 3, 96.9% at 4, 94.2% at 5, and 93.1% at 6 years. Leads "at risk" were: n = 122 (89%), 115 (84%), 101 (74%), and 88 (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population with passive SFLs, 5-year lead survival is impaired with 94.2% based on 74% of leads "at risk" at this time point.

Subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: State-of-the art 2013

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has recently been approved for commercial use in Europe, New Zealand and the United States. It is comprised of a pulse generator, placed subcutaneously in a left lateral position, and a parasternal subcutaneous lead-electrode with two sensing electrodes separated by a shocking coil. Being an entirely subcutaneous system it avoids important periprocedural and long-term complications associated with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) systems as well as the need for fluoroscopy during implant surgery. Suitable candidates include pediatric patients with congenital heart disease that limits intracavitary lead placements, those with obstructed venous access, chronic indwelling catheters or high infection risk, as well as young patients with electrical heart disease (e.g., Brugada Syndrome, long QT syndrome, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). Nevertheless, given the absence of intracavitary leads, the S-ICD is unable to offer pacing (apart from short-term post-shock pacing). It is therefore not suitable in patients with an indication for antibradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy, or with a history of repetitive monomorphic ventricular tachycardia that would benefit from antitachycardia pacing. Current data from initial clinical studies and post-commercialization “real-life” case series, including over 700 patients, have so far been promising and shown that the S-ICD successfully converts induced and spontaneous ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation episodes with associated complication and inappropriate shock rates similar to that of TV-ICDs. Furthermore, by using far-field electrograms better tachyarrhythmia discrimination when compared to TV-ICDs has been reported. Future results from ongoing clinical studies will determine the S-ICD system’s long-term performance, and better define suitable patient profiles.

Clinical Predictors of Fidelis Lead Failure

Background—

Approximately 268 000 Fidelis leads were implanted worldwide until distribution was suspended because of a high rate of early failure. Careful analyses of predictors of increased lead failure hazard are required to help direct future lead design and also to inform decision making on lead replacement. We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of all potential predictors in a multicenter study.

Methods and Results—

A total of 3169 Sprint Fidelis leads were implanted in 11 centers with a total of 251 failures. Lead failure rates at 3, 4, and 5 years were 5.3%, 10.6%, and 16.8%, respectively. The rate of lead failure continues to accelerate ( P <0.001). There were 4 independent predictors of failure: center, sex, access vein, and previous lead failure. Women had a higher hazard of failure (hazard ratio 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.04; P =0.005). Both axillary and subclavian access increased the hazard of failure ( P =0.007); hazard ratio for axillary was 1.94, (95% confidence interval, 1.23–3.04) and for subclavian 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.46). Previous lead failure increased the hazard of a subsequent Fidelis failure with a hazard ratio of 3.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.80–5.41; P <0.001).

Conclusions—

The rate of Fidelis failure continues to increase over time, with failures approaching 17% at 5 years. Women, patients with leads inserted via the subclavian or axillary vein, and those with a previous lead fracture were at greatest risk of Fidelis failure. Our data suggest that Fidelis replacement should be strongly considered at the time of generator replacement.

[Progress in cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias]

This article contains a review of the most important publications in the field of cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias that have appeared in the last year. Publications were selected because they reported important scientific developments or significant improvements in the devices or invasive techniques used for the treatment of arrhythmias.