Conductor extrusion in a persistent left superior vena cava

Externalized conductors and insulation failure in Biotronik defibrillator leads: History repeating or a false alarm?

Conductor externalization and insulation failure are frequent complications with the recalled St. Jude Medical Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads. Conductor externalization is a “unique” failure mechanism: Cables externalize through the insulation (“inside-out” abrasion) and appear outside the lead body. Recently, single reports described a similar failure also for Biotronik leads. Moreover, some studies reported a high rate of electrical dysfunction (not only insulation failure) with Biotronik Linox leads and a reduced survival rate in comparison with the competitors. In this paper we describe the case of a patient with a Biotronik Kentrox ICD lead presenting with signs of insulation failure and conductor externalization at fluoroscopy. Due to the high risk of extraction we decided to implant a new lead, abandoning the damaged one; lead reimplant was uneventful. Subsequently, we review currently available literature about Biotronik Kentrox and Linox ICD lead failure and in particular externalized conductors. Some single-center studies and a non-prospective registry reported a survival rate between 88% and 91% at 5 years for Linox leads, significantly worse than that of other manufacturers. However, the preliminary results of two ongoing multicenter, prospective registries (GALAXY and CELESTIAL) showed 96% survival rate at 5 years after implant, well within industry standards. Ongoing data collection is needed to confirm longer-term performance of this family of ICD leads.

Comparative study of the failure rates among 3 implantable defibrillator leads

BACKGROUND

After the introduction of the Biotronik Linox S/SD high-voltage lead, several cases of early failure have been observed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to assess the performance of the Linox S/SD lead in comparison to 2 other contemporary leads.

METHODS

We used the prospective Erasmus MC ICD registry to identify all implanted Linox S/SD (n = 408), Durata (St. Jude Medical, model 7122) (n = 340), and Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific, models 0155, 0138, and 0158) (n = 343) leads. Lead failure was defined by low- or high-voltage impedance, failure to capture, sense or defibrillate, or the presence of nonphysiological signals not due to external interference.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 24 Linox (5.9%), 5 Endotak (1.5%), and 5 Durata (1.5%) leads failed. At 5-year follow-up, the cumulative failure rate of Linox leads (6.4%) was higher than that of Endotak (0.4%; P < .0001) and Durata (2.0%; P = .003) leads. The incidence rate was higher in Linox leads (1.3 per 100 patient-years) than in Endotak and Durata leads (0.2 and 0.3 per 100 patient-years, respectively; P < .001). A log-log analysis of the cumulative hazard for Linox leads functioning at 3-year follow-up revealed a stable failure rate of 3% per year. The majority of failures consisted of noise (62.5%) and abnormal impedance (33.3%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a higher failure rate of Linox S/SD high-voltage leads compared to contemporary leads. Although the mechanism of lead failure is unclear, the majority presents with abnormal electrical parameters. Comprehensive monitoring of Linox S/SD high-voltage leads includes remote monitoring to facilitate early detection of lead failure.

Insulation Failure of the Linox Defibrillator Lead: A Case Report and Retrospective Review of a Single Center Experience

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead insulation failure and conductor externalization have been increasingly reported. The 7.8F silicon-insulated Linox SD and Linox S ICD leads (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) were released in 2006 and 2007, respectively, with an estimated 85,000 implantations worldwide. A 39-year-old female suffered an out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation (VF) arrest with successful resuscitation. An ICD was implanted utilizing a single coil active fixation Linox(Smart) S lead (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany). A device-triggered alert approximately 3 years after implantation confirmed nonphysiological high rate sensing leading to VF detection. A chest X-ray showed an abnormality of the ICD lead and fluoroscopic screening confirmed conductor externalization proximal to the defibrillator coil. In view of the combined electrical and fluoroscopic abnormalities, urgent lead extraction and replacement were performed. A review of Linox (Biotronik) and Vigila (Sorin Group, Milan, Italy) lead implantations within our center (n = 98) identified 3 additional patients presenting with premature lead failure, 2 associated with nonphysiological sensed events and one associated with a significant decrease in lead impedance. All leads were subsequently removed and replaced. This case provides a striking example of insulation failure affecting the Linox ICD lead and, we believe, is the first to demonstrate conductor externalization manifesting both electrical and fluoroscopic abnormalities.

Early failure of the Biotronik Linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead

INTRODUCTION

The Linox and Durata implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads were introduced to British Columbia (BC) in 2008. We determined their performance and the potential risk factors for lead failure in a large population-based patient registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used the BC Cardiac Registry, a mandatory Governmental database of ICD implants, to identify all recipients of Linox and Durata leads in BC between October 2008 and April 2012, and those subsequently undergoing reoperation. Lead failure was defined as recurrent nonphysiological high-rate sensing unrelated to external electromagnetic interference or T-wave oversensing; a sudden rise in impedance unrelated to perforation or lead dislodgement; or abnormal lead parameters with definite evidence of lead fracture or insulation failure. We determined the estimated cumulative lead survival by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the risk factors for lead failure in a proportional hazards model. Over a median of 39 (27-50) months, the Linox failed more frequently than the Durata (16/477 [3.4%] vs. 4/838 [0.4%]; P < 0.001), and had a significantly lower estimated cumulative survival (91.6 [80.6-96.5]% vs. 99.4 [98.4-99.8]% at 5 years; P < 0.0001). Linox failure was characterized by high-rate nonphysiological sensing (11 cases), and/or a sudden impedance rise (7 cases). Insulation failure was clearly confirmed in 6 cases of Linox failure. Female sex was a significant risk factor for Linox failure (adjusted HR = 2.1[1.3-3.4]; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter registry indicates a high rate of Linox lead failure, particularly in female patients. Ongoing surveillance of the Linox ICD lead performance is recommended.