Longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for cardiac resynchronization therapy in current clinical practice: an analysis according to influencing factors, device generation, and manufacturer

Real-world evidence in health technology assessment of high-risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?

Health technology assessment (HTA) of medical devices (MDs) increasingly rely on real-world evidence (RWE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the type and the quality of the evidence used to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of high risk MDs (Class III) by HTA agencies in Europe (four European HTA agencies and EUnetHTA), with particular focus on RWE. Data were extracted from HTA reports on the type of evidence demonstrating (cost-)effectiveness, and the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. 25 HTA reports were included that incorporated 28 observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Half of the studies (46%) took important confounding and/or effect modifying variables into account in the design and/or analyses. The most common way of including confounders and/or effect modifiers was through multivariable regression analysis. Other methods, such as propensity score matching, were rarely employed. Furthermore, meaningful analyses to test key assumptions were largely omitted. Resulting recommendations from HTA agencies on MDs is therefore (partially) based on evidence which is riddled with uncertainty. Considering the increasing importance of RWE it is important that the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness are systematically assessed when used in decision-making.

Device runtime and costs of cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers - a health claims data analysis

Introduction: This study investigates the runtime and costs of biventricular defibrillators (CRT-D) and biventricular pacemakers (CRT-P). Accurate estimates of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device runtime across all manufactures are rare, especially for CRT-P. Methods: Health claims data of a large nationwide German health insurance was used to analyze CRT device runtime. We defined device runtime as the time between the date of implantation and the date of generator change or removal. The median costs for implantation, change, and removal of a CRT device were calculated accordingly. Results: In total, the data set comprises 17,826 patients. A total of 4,296 complete runtimes for CRT-D devices and 429 complete runtimes for CRT-P devices were observed. Median device runtime was 6.04 years for CRT-D devices and 8.16 years for CRT-P devices (log-rank test p<0.0001). The median cost of implantation for a CRT-D device was 14,270 EUR, and for a CRT-P device 9,349 EUR. Conclusions: Compared to CRT-P devices, CRT-D devices had a significantly shorter device runtime of about two years. Moreover, CRT-D devices were associated with higher cost. The study provides important findings that can be utilized by cost-effectiveness analyses.

Estimate and reporting of longevity for cardiac implantable electronic devices: a proposal for standardized criteria

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are widely used according to consensus guidelines in various patient categories. The longevity of CIED is a major determinant of the frequency with which patients require device replacement. Given the mismatch between the useful life of the devices and patient survival, device replacement is often needed. There is a great variability in the criteria used by manufacturers to determine the longevity of pacemakers (PM), implantable defibrillators (ICDs), and devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Thus, a fair comparison and an effective device evaluation is often difficult.

METHODS

The objective of this paper is to provide standardized criteria based on typical clinical settings for estimating the longevity of single and dual chamber ICDs, cardiac resynchronization defibrillators (CRT-D), single and dual chamber PMs, and cardiac resynchronization PMs (CRT- P) to be used in health technology assessment for an appropriate comparison among different devices.

RESULTS

The proposed parameters, if applied to the current marketed devices, provide longevity values in the range 5-17.2 years.

CONCLUSION

The values of longevity with the non-standardized criteria used by the manufacturers result in higher maximum values respect to the proposed standardized criteria for CRT-D, CRTD-MPP, CRT-P, and Dual-chamber PM.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Reoperations and the Competing Risk of Death

BACKGROUND

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), which includes pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), cardiac resynchronisation therapy pacemakers (CRT-P) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators (CRT-D) has increased over the past 20 years, but there is a lack of real world evidence on the longevity of these devices in the older population which is essential to inform health care delivery and support clinical decisions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs database. The cohort consisted of people who had a CIED procedure between 2005 and 2015. The cumulative risk of generator replacement/reoperations was estimated accounting for the competing risk of death. A total of 16,662 patients were included. In pacemaker recipients with an average age of 85 years, the 5-year risk of reoperation ranged from 2.8% in single chamber, 3.6% in dual chamber to 7.6% in CRT-P recipients, while the 5-year risk of dying with the index pacemaker in situ was 63% in single chamber, 46% in dual chamber and 56% in CRT-P recipients. In defibrillator recipients with an average age of 80 years, the 5-year risk of reoperation ranged from 11% in single chamber, 13% in dual chamber to 24% in CRT-D recipients, while the 5-year risk of dying with the index defibrillator in situ was 46% in single chamber, 40% in dual chamber and 41% in CRT-D recipients.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of older patients the 5-year risk of generator reoperation was low in pacemaker recipients whereas up to one in four CRT-D recipients would have a reoperation within 5 years.

Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy in Patients with Moderate to Severe Heart Failure in Germany: A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Additional Defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is a well-established form of treatment for patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony. There are two different types of CRT devices: the biventricular pacemaker (CRT-P) and the biventricular defibrillator (CRT-D). The latter is more complex but also more expensive. For the majority of patients who are eligible for CRT, both devices are appropriate according to current guidelines. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis for CRT-D compared to CRT-P from a German payer's perspective.

METHODS

A cohort Markov-model was developed to assess average costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for CRT-D and CRT-P. The model consisted of six stages: one for the device implementation, one for the absorbing state death, and two stages ("Stable" and "Hospital") for either a CRT device or medical therapy. The time horizon was 20 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CRT-D compared with CRT-P was €24,659 per additional QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the survival advantage of CRT-D to CRT-P was the most influential input parameter. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis 96% of the simulated cases were more effective but also more costly.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapy with CRT-D compared to CRT-P resulted in an additional gain of QALYs, but was more expensive. In addition, the ICER was subject to uncertainty, especially due to the uncertainty in the survival benefit. A randomised controlled trial and subgroup analyses would be desirable to further inform decision making.

Association Between Industry Payments to Physicians and Device Selection in ICD Implantation

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated.

EXPOSURES

Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities. Among these physicians, 4152 (94%) received payments from device manufacturers ranging from $2 to $323 559 with a median payment of $1211 (interquartile range, $390-$3702). Between 38.5% and 54.7% of patients received devices from the manufacturers that had provided physicians with the largest payments. Patients were substantially more likely to receive devices made by the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation than they were from each other individual manufacturer. The absolute differences in proportional use from the expected prevalence were 22.4% (95% CI, 21.9%-22.9%) for manufacturer A; 14.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-15.0%) for manufacturer B; 18.8% (95% CI, 18.2%-19.4%) for manufacturer C; and 30.6% (95% CI, 30.0%-31.2%) for manufacturer D.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, a large proportion of ICD or CRT-D implantations were performed by physicians who received payments from device manufacturers. Patients were more likely to receive ICD or CRT-D devices from the manufacturer that provided the highest total payment to the physician who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation than each other manufacturer individually.

Single- and multi-site pacing strategies for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy: impact on device longevity and therapy cost

BACKGROUND

Multiple left ventricular pacing strategies have been suggested for improving response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, these programming strategies may sometimes entail accepting configurations with high pacing threshold and accelerated battery drain. We assessed the feasibility of predefined pacing programming protocols, and we evaluated their impact on device longevity and their cost-impact.

METHODS

We estimated battery longevity in 167 CRT-D patients based on measured pacing parameters according to multiple alternative programming strategies: single-site pacing associated with lowest threshold, non-apical location, longest interventricular delay, and pacing from two electrodes. To determine the economic impact of each programming strategy, we applied the results of a model-based cost analysis using a 15-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Selecting the electrode with the lowest threshold resulted in a median device longevity of 11.5 years. Non-apical pacing and interventricular delay maximization were feasible in most patients and were obtained at the price of a few months of battery life. Device longevity of > 10 years was preserved in 87% of cases of non-apical pacing and in 77% on pacing at the longest interventricular delay. The mean reduction in battery life when the second electrode was activated was 1.5 years. Single-site pacing strategies increased the therapy cost by 4-6%, and multi-site pacing by 12-13%, in comparison with the lowest-cost scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern CRT-D systems ensure effective pacing and allow multiple optimization strategies for maximizing service life or for enhancing effectiveness. Single- or multi-site pacing strategies can be implemented without compromising device service life and at an acceptable increase in therapy cost.

Projected longevities of cardiac implantable defibrillators: a retrospective analysis over the period 2007–17 and the impact of technological factors in determining longevity

Aims

Implanters of cardiac implantable electronic devices cannot easily choose devices by longevity as usually current models only have projected longevity data since those with known performance are obsolete. This study examines how projected device longevities are derived, the influencing factors, and their roles in guiding model choice.

Methods and results

Ninety-eight implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) models released in Europe in 2007–17 were analysed for reported battery capacities, projected longevities for standardized settings stipulated by the French Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and manufacturer-chosen settings. Battery capacities and HAS projected longevities increased during the study period. Based on current drain estimation, therapy functions consumed only a small portion (2–7%) of the battery energy for single- and dual-chamber ICDs, but up to 50% (from biventricular pacing) for CRT-Ds. Large differences exist between manufacturers and models both in terms of battery capacity and energy consumption.

Conclusion

Battery capacity is not the sole driver of longevity for electronic implantable cardiac devices and, particularly for ICDs, the core function consume a large part of the battery energy even in the absence of therapy. Providing standardized current drain consumption in addition to battery capacity may provide more meaningful longevity information among implantable electronic cardiac devices.

Favorable Trend of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Service Life in a Large Single-Nation Population: Insights From 10-Year Analysis of the Italian Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry

Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are widely employed for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Despite technological improvements, patients often need to undergo generator replacement, which entails the risk of periprocedural complications. Our aim was to estimate the service life of ICDs over a 10-year interval and to assess the main causes of replacement on the basis of data from the National ICD Registry of the Italian Society of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC). Methods and Results The registry includes data from over 400 hospitals in Italy. We included all patients who underwent device replacement from calendar years 2007 to 2016. The median service life of the ICDs and its trend over the years was estimated across the 3 types of devices (single-chamber, dual-chamber, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator) and the indication to implantation. The causes of replacement were also analyzed. We included 29 158 records from 27 676 patients (80.9% men; mean age at device replacement 65.8±12.0 years). The median service life was 57.3 months (interquartile range 27.8 months). Over the years, service life showed an increasing trend. The majority of patients underwent elective replacement because of battery end of life, and over the years there was a significant reduction of replacement for recalls, erosion/infections, and cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrading. Conclusions Our data from a large single-nation population showed that the trend of ICD service life, independently from ICD type, indication, and settings, significantly improved over time. Moreover, there was a striking reduction of interventions for upgrading and infection/erosion. This favorable trend has important clinical, organizational, and financial implications.

Real-life outcome of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization defibrillator replacement/upgrade in a contemporary population: observations from the multicentre DECODE registry

Aims

The benefit of prolonged implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy following device replacement is hindered by clinical and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). Adverse events rate is highest in more complex devices and at upgrades, as per the REPLACE registry experience, but is changing owing to the improvement in device technology and medical care. We aimed at understanding the extent and type of AEs in a contemporary Italian population.

Methods and results

Detect long-term complications after ICD replacement (DECODE) was a prospective, single-arm, multicentre cohort study aimed at estimating medium- to long-term AEs in a large population of patients undergoing ICD/cardiac resynchronization defibrillator replacement/upgrade from 2013 to 2015. We prospectively analysed all clinical and device-related AEs at 12-month follow-up (FU) of 983 consecutive patients (median age 71 years, 76% male, 55% ischaemic, 47% CRT-D) followed for 353 ± 49 days. Seven percent of the patients died (60.6% for cardiovascular reasons), whereas 104 AEs occurred; 43 (4.4%) patients needed at least one surgical action to treat the AE. Adverse events rates were 3.3/100 years lead-related, 3.4/100 years bleedings, and 1.6/100 years infective. The primary endpoint was predicted by hospitalization in the month prior to the procedure [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.23, 1.16–4.29; 0.0169] and by upgrade (HR = 1.75, 1.02–2.99, 0.0441). One hundred and twelve (11.4%) patients met the combined endpoint of death from any cause, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related infection, and surgical action/hospitalization required to treat the AE. Hospitalization within 30 days prior to the procedure (HR = 2.07, 1.13–3.81; 0.0199), anticoagulation (HR = 1.97, 1.26–3.07; 0.003), and ischaemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.06–2.63; P = 0.0276) were associated with the combined endpoint during FU.

Conclusions

Adverse events following CIED replacement/upgrade are lower than previously reported, possibly owing to improved patients care. Hospitalization in the month prior to the procedure, upgrade, and clinical profile (anticoagulation, ischaemic cardiomyopathy) hint to increased risk, suggesting an individualized planning of the procedure to minimize overall AEs.

Clinical trial registration

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier: NCT02076789.

Very long-term survival and late sudden cardiac death in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients

Aims

The very long-term outcome of patients who survive the first few years after receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been well described thus far. We aimed to provide long-term outcomes, especially with regard to the occurrence of sudden cardiac death (SCD), in CRT patients without (CRT-P) and with defibrillator (CRT-D).

Methods and results

A total of 1775 patients, with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who were alive 5 years after CRT implantation, were enrolled in this multicentre European observational cohort study. Overall long-term mortality rates and specific causes of death were assessed, with a focus on late SCD. Over a mean follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range 10–42 months) beyond the first 5 years, we observed 473 deaths. The annual age-standardized mortality rates of CRT-D and CRT-P patients were 40.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 35.3–45.5] and 97.2 (95% CI 85.5–109.9) per 1000 patient-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI 0.79–1.22). Twenty-nine patients in total died of late SCD (14 with CRT-P, 15 with CRT-D), corresponding to 6.1% of all causes of death in both device groups. Specific annual SCD rates were 8.5 and 5.8 per 1000 patient-years in CRT-P and CRT-D patients, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.45–2.44). Death due to progressive heart failure represented the principal cause of death (42.8% in CRT-P patients and 52.6% among CRT-D recipients), whereas approximately one-third of deaths in both device groups were due to non-cardiovascular death.

Conclusion

In this first description of very long-term outcomes among CRT recipients, progressive heart failure death still represented the most frequent cause of death in patients surviving the first 5 years after CRT implant. In contrast, SCD represents a very low proportion of late mortality irrespective of the presence of a defibrillator.

Longevity decoded: Insights from power consumption analyses into device construction and their clinical implications

Introduction

The longevity of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) depends on how quickly the powers consumed by the device's functions exhaust its usable battery energy. A mathematical model for CIED power consumptions was developed and validated against longevity data from manufacturers.

Methods

The programmable parameters for the Resonate X4 cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT‐Ds) on the Boston Scientific (St. Paul, MN, USA) online longevity calculator were designated as independent terms in the sum for the total power consumption. The reciprocal of longevity was plotted against variations in these terms. Linear and nonlinear regression analyses were used to fit the plots. The power consumed by pacing was theoretically derived and used as the calibrating tool for estimating the powers consumed by other functions and the usable battery energy. The same methodology was applied to the longevity data of other manufacturers’ CRT‐Ds.

Results

Single chamber 100% pacing at 60 beats/min, 2.5 V, 0.4 ms, 500 Ω consumes ≈ 144 J/year. Shock therapy is 45–85% energy efficient. Multichamber pacing modes and maintaining readiness to pace a chamber consume power even if no pacing is delivered. Switching voltage regulation is theoretically more energy efficient than linear voltage regulation for powering pacing.

Conclusions

The powers consumed by therapy functions are dictated by the patient's clinical needs, but healthcare professionals can extend device longevity by switching off dormant functions and simplifying the pacing mode. Choosing a device model with large usable battery energy, low background power, and energy efficient pacing and shock therapy for implantation will increase the probability of a long service lifespan.

Predicted longevity of contemporary cardiac implantable electronic devices: A call for industry-wide "standardized" reporting

BACKGROUND

Battery longevity is an important factor that may influence the selection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, there remains a lack of industry-wide standardized reporting of predicted CIED longevity to facilitate informed decision-making for implanting physicians and payers.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the predicted longevity of current generation CIEDs using best-matched CIEDs settings to assess differences between brands and models.

METHODS

Data were extracted for current model pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds) from product manuals and, where absent, by communication with the manufacturers. Pacemaker longevity estimations were based on standardized pacing outputs (2.5V, 0.40-ms pulse width, 500-Ω impedance) and pacing loads of 50% or 100% at 60 bpm. ICD and CRT-D longevity were estimated at 0% pacing and 15% atrial plus 100% biventricular pacing, with essential capacitor reforms and zero clinical shocks.

RESULTS

Mean maximum predicted longevity of single- and dual-chamber pacemakers was 12.0 ± 2.1 and 9.8 ± 1.9 years, respectively. Use of advanced features such as remote monitoring, prearrhythmia electrogram storage, and rate response can result in ∼1.4 years of reduction in longevity. Mean maximum predicted longevity of ICDs and CRT-Ds was 12.4 ± 3.0 and 8.8 ± 2.1 years, respectively. Of note, there were significant variations in predicted CIED longevity according to device manufacturers, with up to 44%, 42%, and 44% difference for pacemakers, ICDs, and CRT-Ds, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary CIEDs demonstrate highly variable predicted longevity according to device manufacturers. This may impact on health care costs and long-term clinical outcomes.

ENDURALIFE-Powered Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Defibrillator Devices for Treating Heart Failure: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

ENDURALIFE™-powered cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) devices were the subject of an evaluation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, through its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, for the treatment of heart failure. Boston Scientific (manufacturer) submitted a case for the adoption of the technology, claiming that it has a longer battery life resulting in a longer time to CRT-D replacement. Other claimed benefits were fewer complications associated with replacement procedures, fewer hospital admissions, less time spent in hospital and reduced demand on cardiology device implantation rooms. The submission was critiqued by Cedar, an external assessment centre. The submitted clinical evidence showed that ENDURALIFE-powered devices implanted during the period 2008-2010 were superior, in terms of longevity, to other devices at that time. Submitted economic evidence indicated that, because of a reduction in the need for replacement procedures, ENDURALIFE-powered devices were cost saving when compared to comparator devices. Cedar highlighted uncertainty of the applicability of the clinical evidence to devices marketed today. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee noted that this was unavoidable due to the follow-up time required to study battery life. Clinical experts noted that increased battery life is an important patient benefit. However, centres use devices from multiple manufacturers to negate pressure on clinical services in the event of a major device recall. The clinical and economic evidence showed benefits to the patient, and further analysis requested by the committee suggested that ENDURALIFE-powered CRT-Ds may save between £2120 and £5627 per patient over 15 years through a reduction in the need for replacement procedures. ENDURALIFE-powered CRT-D devices received a positive recommendation in Medical Technologies Guidance 33.

Longevity of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices

Battery depletion is the most common reason for device reoperation, which is associated with significant patient morbidity and mortality. This article describes the history of pacing and defibrillation power supplies and the factors that determine the longevity of pacing and defibrillator generators with a special emphasis on factors that can be adjusted or controlled by the implanting and following physician. Optimization of longevity is attained through device selection; shock minimization; avoidance of prolonged radiofrequency telemetry; selection of higher impedance vectors; avoidance of long pulse duration when possible; and avoidance of unnecessary feature activation, such as continuous electrogram storage.

Replacement of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

The aim of this EP Wire was to assess the management, indications, and techniques for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device replacement in Europe. A total of 24 centres in 14 European countries completed the questionnaire. All centres were members of the European Heart Rhythm Association Electrophysiology Research Network. Replacement procedures were performed by electrophysiologists in 52% of the centres, by cardiologists in 33%, and both in the remaining centres. In the majority of centres, the procedures were performed during a short hospitalization (<2 days; 61.2%), or on an outpatient basis (28%). The overwhelming majority of centres reported that they replaced ICDs at the end of battery life. Only in a small subset (<10%) of patients with ICD for primary prevention and without ventricular tachycardia (VT) since implantation, ICD was not replaced. In inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes, 80% of the centres always replaced the ICD at the end of battery life. After VT ablation, only few centres (9%) explanted or downgraded the device that was previously implanted for secondary prevention, but only in those patients without new VT episodes. Patient's life expectancy <1 year was the most commonly reported reason (61%) to downgrade from a CRT-D to a CRT-P device. While warfarin therapy was continued in 47% of the centres, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants were discontinued without bridging 24 h prior to replacement procedures in 60%. Finally, in 65% of the centres, VT induction and shock testing during ICD and CRT-D replacement were performed only in the case of leads with a warning or with borderline measurements. This survey provides a snapshot of the perioperative management, indications, and techniques of ICD and CRT device replacement in Europe. It demonstrates some variations between participating centres, probably related to local policies and to the heterogeneity of the ICD population.

The economic impact of battery longevity in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the hospital and healthcare system perspectives

Aims

Patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds) are likely to undergo one or more device replacements, mainly for battery depletion. We assessed the economic impact of battery depletion on the overall cost of CRT-D treatment from the perspectives of the healthcare system and the hospital. We also compared devices of different generations and from different manufacturers in terms of therapy cost.

Methods and results

We analysed data on 1792 CRT-Ds implanted in 1399 patients in 9 Italian centres. We calculated the replacement probability and the total therapy cost over 6 years, stratified by device generation and manufacturer. Public tariffs from diagnosis-related groups were used together with device prices and hospitalization costs. Generators were from 3 manufacturers: Boston Scientific (667, 37%), Medtronic (973, 54%), and St Jude Medical (152, 9%). The replacement probability at 6 years was 83 and 68% for earlier- and recent-generation devices, respectively. The need for replacement increased total therapy costs by more than 50% over the initial implantation cost for hospitals and by more than 30% for healthcare system. The improved longevity of recent-generation CRT-Ds reduced the therapy cost by ∼6% in both perspectives. Among recent-generation CRT-Ds, the replacement probability of devices from different manufacturers ranged from 12 to 70%. Consequently, the maximum difference in therapy cost between manufacturers was 40% for hospitals and 19% for the healthcare system.

Conclusions

Differences in CRT-D longevity strongly affect the overall therapy cost. While the use of recent-generation devices has reduced the cost, significant differences exist among currently available systems.

Long-Term Experience with First-Generation Implantable Neurostimulation Device in Central Sleep Apnea Treatment

BACKGROUND

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSR) are associated with shorter survival in patients with heart failure. A novel treatment method for this patient group is unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation by the remedē® system (Respicardia Inc., Minnetonka, MN, USA), a transvenously implantable neurostimulation device, which has recently been studied in a large randomized, controlled trial. Previous literature has shown efficacy and safety of the treatment with this first-generation device, but hardly any data are available on long-term clinical parameters, the remedē® device's battery lifetime, device exchangeability, lead position stability, surgical accessibility, and manageability.

METHODS

We performed remedē® device replacements in consecutive patients for battery depletion, and documented clinical parameters, longevity, operation procedure, complications, and difficulties.

RESULTS

All patients were on neurostimulation treatment by phrenic nerve neurostimulation when device replacement became necessary. Apnea-hypopnea index (from 45 ± 4/h to 9 ± 4/h), oxygen-desaturation index (from 35 ± 7/h to 7 ± 6/h), and time spent with oxygen saturation of <90% (T < 90% from 5 ± 7% to 0 ± 0%) were improved and improvements remained constant throughout the 4-year follow-up. Mean battery life was 4.2 ± 0.2 years and mean replacement procedure time was 25 ± 5.1 minutes. Apart from conventional X-ray documentation of stable lead positions in a long-term setting, no radiation or contrast dye usage was needed and no major complications occurred. In addition, clinical exercise capacity and sleepiness symptoms improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel remedē® device shows sustained therapy efficacy and safety in terms of stable lead positions over 4 years. Long-term phrenic nerve neurostimulation therapy for central SDB/CSR appears feasible in a clinical routine setting.

Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies

BACKGROUND

Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for predictors of appropriate therapies after GR.

METHODS

We identified all consecutive patients who had received an ICD at our hospital, for LVEF ≤35% and no previous arrhythmias or unexplained syncope. Then, we included the 166 patients who outlived their first device and underwent GR.

RESULTS

At the time of GR (mean follow-up 59 ± 20 months), ICD indication (i.e. LVEF ≤35% or previously treated ventricular arrhythmias) persisted in 114 (69%) patients. After GR, appropriate ICD therapies were delivered in 30 (26%) patients with persistent ICD indication and in 12 (23%) of the remaining patients (p = 0.656). Nonetheless, the annual rate of therapies was higher in the first group (1.08 versus 0.53 events/year; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of inappropriate therapies (0.03 versus 0 events/year; p = 0.031). The only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies after GR was the rate of shocks received before replacement (Hazard Ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.96; p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

In heart failure with reduced LVEF, ICD indication persisted at the time of GR in 69% of patients. However, even in the absence of persistent ICD indication at GR, the risk of recurrence of arrhythmic events was not null.

Battery longevity from cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: differences between manufacturers and discrepancies with published product performance reports

Aims

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important treatment for heart failure that requires constant ventricular pacing, placing a high energy burden on CRT defibrillators (CRT-D). Longer battery life reduces the need for device changes and associated complications, thereby affecting patient outcomes and cost of care. We therefore investigated the time to battery depletion of CRT-D from different manufacturers and compared these results with manufacturers' published product performance reports (PPRs).

Methods and results

All CRT-D recipients at our institution between January 2008 and December 2010 were included in this study cohort. The patients were followed up to the endpoint of battery depletion and were otherwise censored at the time of death, last follow-up, or device removal for any reason other than battery depletion. A total of 621 patients [173 Boston Scientific (BSC), 391 Medtronic (MDT), and 57 St. Jude Medical (SJM)] were followed up for a median of 3.7 (IQR 1.6-5.0) years, during which time 253 (41%) devices were replaced for battery depletion. Compared with MDT devices, battery depletion was 85 and 54% less likely to happen with BSC and SJM devices, respectively (P < 0.001 for pairwise comparisons). Product performance reports from all manufacturers significantly overestimated battery longevity by more than 20% 6 years after device implantation.

Conclusions

Large differences in CRT-D battery longevity exist between manufacturers. Industry-published PPRs significantly overestimate device longevity. These data have important implications to patients, healthcare professionals, hospitals, and third-party payers.

Significant Discrepancy Between Estimated and Actual Longevity in St. Jude Medical Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Real-time estimated longevity has been reported in pacemakers for several years, and was recently introduced in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the accuracy of this longevity estimate in St. Jude Medical (SJM) ICDs, especially as the device battery approaches depletion.

METHODS

Among patients with SJM ICDs who underwent generator replacements due to reaching elective replacement indicator (ERI) at our institution, we identified those with devices that provided longevity estimates and reviewed their device interrogations in the 18 months prior to ERI. Significant discrepancy was defined as a difference of more than 12 months between estimated and actual longevity at any point during this period.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients with Current/Promote devices formed the study group (40 cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT] and 6 single/dual chamber). Of these, 34 (74%) had significant discrepancy between estimated and actual longevity (28 CRT and all single/dual). Longevity was significantly overestimated by the device algorithm (mean maximum discrepancy of 18.8 months), more in single/dual than CRT devices (30.5 vs. 17.1 months). Marked discrepancy was seen at voltages ≥2.57 volts, with maximum discrepancy at 2.57 volts (23 months). The overall longevity was higher in the discrepant group of CRT devices than in the nondiscrepant group (67 vs. 61 months, log-rank P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant overestimation of longevity in nearly three-fourths of Current/Promote SJM ICDs in the last 18 months prior to ERI. Longevity estimates of SJM ICDs may not be reliable for making clinical decisions on frequency of follow-up, as the battery approaches depletion.

Technologies for Prolonging Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Longevity

Prolonged longevity of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is needed not only as a passive response to match the prolonging life expectancy of patient recipients, but will also actively prolong their life expectancy by avoiding/deferring the risks (and costs) associated with device replacement. CIEDs are still exclusively powered by nonrechargeable primary batteries, and energy exhaustion is the dominant and an inevitable cause of device replacement. The longevity of a CIED is thus determined by the attrition rate of its finite energy reserve. The energy available from a battery depends on its capacity (total amount of electric charge), chemistry (anode, cathode, and electrolyte), and internal architecture (stacked plate, folded plate, and spiral wound). The energy uses of a CIED vary and include a background current for running electronic circuitry, periodic radiofrequency telemetry, high-voltage capacitor reformation, constant ventricular pacing, and sporadic shocks for the cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. The energy use by a CIED is primarily determined by the patient recipient's clinical needs, but the energy stored in the device battery is entirely under the manufacturer's control. A larger battery capacity generally results in a longer-lasting device, but improved battery chemistry and architecture may allow more space-efficient designs. Armed with the necessary technical knowledge, healthcare professionals and purchasers will be empowered to make judicious selection on device models and maximize the utilization of all their energy-saving features, to prolong device longevity for the benefits of their patients and healthcare systems.

Economic impact of longer battery life of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to quantify the impact that longer battery life of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) devices has on reducing the number of device replacements and associated costs of these replacements from a Swedish health care system perspective.

METHODS

An economic model based on real-world published data was developed to estimate cost savings and avoided device replacements for CRT-Ds with longer battery life compared with devices with industry-standard battery life expectancy. Base-case comparisons were performed among CRT-Ds of three manufacturers - Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Jude Medical, and Medtronic - over a 6-year time horizon, as per the available clinical data. As a sensitivity analysis, we evaluated CRT-Ds as well as single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD-VR) and dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD-DR) devices over a longer 10-year period. All costs were in 2015 Swedish Krona (SEK) discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis results show that up to 603 replacements and up to SEK 60.4 million cumulative-associated costs could be avoided over 6 years by using devices with extended battery life. The pattern of savings over time suggests that savings are modest initially but increase rapidly beginning in the third year of follow-up with each year's cumulative savings two to three times the previous year. Evaluating CRT-D, ICD-VR, and ICD-DR devices together over a longer 10-year period, the sensitivity analysis showed 2,820 fewer replacement procedures and associated cost savings of SEK 249.3 million for all defibrillators with extended battery life.

CONCLUSION

Extended battery life is likely to reduce device replacements and associated complications and costs, which may result in important cost savings and a more efficient use of health care resources as well as a better quality of life for heart failure patients in Sweden.

Device Longevity in a Contemporary Cohort of ICD/CRT-D Patients Undergoing Device Replacement

INTRODUCTION

The longevity of defibrillators (ICD) is extremely important from both a clinical and economic perspective. We studied the reasons for device replacement, the longevity of removed ICD, and the existence of possible factors associated with shorter service life.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients who underwent ICD replacement from March 2013 to May 2015 in 36 Italian centers were included in this analysis. Data on replaced devices were collected. A total of 953 patients were included in this analysis. In 813 (85%) patients the reason for replacement was battery depletion, while 88 (9%) devices were removed for clinical reasons and the remaining 52 because of system failure (i.e., lead or ICD generator failure or a safety advisory indication). The median service life was 5.9 years (25th-75th percentile, 4.9-6.9) for single- and dual-chamber ICD and 4.9 years (25th-75th percentile, 4.0-5.7) for CRT-D. On multivariate analysis, the factors CRT-D device, SC/DC ICD generator from Biotronik, percentage of ventricular pacing, and the occurrence of a system failure were positively associated with a replacement procedure. By contrast, the device from Boston Scientific was an independent protective factor against replacement. Considerable differences were seen in battery duration in both ICD and CRT-D. Specifically, Biotronik devices showed the shortest longevity among ICD and Boston Scientific showed the longest longevity among CRT-D (log-rank test, P < 0.001 for pairwise comparisons).

CONCLUSION

Several factors were associated with shorter service life of ICD devices: CRT-D, occurrence of system failure and percentage of ventricular pacing. Our results confirmed significant differences among manufacturers.

Battery drain in daily practice and medium-term projections on longevity of cardioverter-defibrillators: an analysis from a remote monitoring database

AIMS

The longevity of generators is a crucial determinant of the cost-effectiveness of therapy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D). We evaluated the trend of device-measured residual battery capacity and longevity projections over 5-year follow-up. We also investigated possible factors associated with battery drain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 4851 patients in the European LATITUDE(®) database who were followed up for a minimum of 3 years were analysed. The factors associated with battery drain (i.e. year-to-year decrease in residual battery capacity), and thus potentially impacting on device longevity, were mainly the pacing parameters in CRT-D devices and the number of shocks delivered and diverted in both ICD and CRT-D (all P < 0.01 on linear regression analysis). Over the first 5 years, the longevity estimates provided by devices showed low intra-patient variability and increased with time. The estimates exceeded 10 years for CRT-D and 13 and 12 years for single- and dual-chamber ICDs, respectively. In CRT-D patients, the expected patient age on replacement was 80 ± 12 years, and the expected probability of undergoing device replacement was 63 ± 13% for New York Heart Association (NYHA) II patients and 37 ± 16% for NYHA III patients. For comparison, the probabilities of replacing a CRT-D lasting 5 years were 78 ± 8 and 59 ± 13%, respectively (both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Battery drain was mainly associated with pacing output in CRT-D devices and with the number of capacitor charges in both ICD and CRT-D devices. The longevity estimates provided by the devices were consistent and conservative. According to these estimates, among CRT-D recipients a low proportion of patients should require device replacement.

Health economic concerns on cardiac rhythm management devices longevity and how to overcome them

The number of device implantations is in constant increase due to the ageing population, extended indications to implant for preventing sudden cardiac death and treating heart failure. An increase in the number of implants is directly related to a higher number of device replacements and that is one of the most important risk factors for device infection. Therefore, all the above mentioned factors contribute to an increase in the cost for health care system. Currently, several methods help to prolong device battery longevity and consequently reduce the costs, such as: a new battery, drug eluting leads, high impedance leads, algorithm to minimize unnecessary pacing, capture management and correct programming to avoid inappropriate and unnecessary shock in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy devices. Furthermore remote monitoring is very promising to reduce health system costs related to devices.

Longevity of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a comparison among manufacturers and over time

Aims

Longevity of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is crucial for patients and healthcare systems as replacements impact on infection rates and cost-effectiveness. Aim was to determine longevity using very large databases of two teaching hospitals with a high number of replacements and a rather homogeneous distribution among manufacturers.

Methods and results

The study population consists of all patients in whom an ICD was inserted in. All ICD manufacturers operating in Switzerland and the Netherlands and all implanted ICDs were included. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator replacements due to normal battery depletion were considered events, and other replacements were censored. Longevity was assessed depending on manufacturers, pacing mode, implant before/after 2006, and all parameters combined. We analysed data from 3436 patients in whom 4881 ICDs [44.2% VVI-ICDs, 27.4% DDD-ICDs, 26.3% cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-ICDs, 2.0% subcutaneous ICDs] were implanted. The four major manufacturers had implant shares between 18.4 and 31.5%. Replacement due to battery depletion (27.4%) was performed for 1339 ICDs. Patient survival at 5 years was 80.1%. Longevity at 5 years improved in contemporary compared with elderly ICDs [63.9–80.6% across all ICDs, of 73.7–92.1% in VVIs, 58.2–76.1% in DDDs, and of 47.1–66.3% in CRT defibrillators, all P value < 0.05]. Remarkable differences were seen among manufacturers, and those with better performance in elderly ICDs were not those with better performance in contemporary ones.

Conclusion

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator longevity increased in contemporary models independent of manufacturer and pacing mode. Still, significant differences exist among manufacturers. These results might impact on device selection.