Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead performance: A systematic review and individual patient data Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reliable post-approval surveillance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead performance remains a challenge. In the past, two ICD leads were recalled due to a high frequency of failures. In this meta-analysis, we sought to provide a combined estimate of failure-free rate for ICD leads by reconstructing individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and to investigate whether estimates could be influenced by the characteristics of the study.

METHODS

Observational studies assessing failure-free estimates of transvenous ICD leads with KM method, were identified through a systematic search up to November 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were eligible that included 41,870 (63.1%) non-recalled leads and 24,493 (36.9%) recalled leads. The 8-year cumulative failure-free rate was 94.1% (CI, 93.6% - 94.6%) for contemporary non-recalled leads and 81.2% (80.3% - 82.0%) for recalled leads (hazard ratio [HR], 3.15 [2.85-3.47], p < 0.001). Failure-free rate was lower in single-center studies in both the non-recalled (HR, 0.28 [0.15-0.51], p < 0.001) and recalled (HR, 0.54 [0.33-0.88], p = 0.014) group compared with multicenter studies. Similarly, estimates were significantly lower in small (i.e. extracted KM curve with <312 leads) versus large studies (HR non-recalled group, 0.54 [CI, 0.33-0.89], p = 0.015; HR recalled group, 0.62 [CI, 0.43-0.89], p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis including >66,000 leads, we provide pooled survival curves that may play a role in generating evidence-based standards for assessing clinically acceptable failure rates for ICD leads. Lead performance was underestimated with single-center and small-sized studies; multicenter studies remain the main tool to reliably conduct post-market surveillance of ICD leads.

Surgical Techniques, Complications, and Long-Term Health Effects of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) has helped with advanced technological improvement in the cardiac field and has been a long-term alternative to medical management. There are different forms of CIEDs such as pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. These devices are efficient in establishing near-normal hemodynamics and circulation that ultimately aid physicians to improve the quality of life for their patients. However, there are risk factors that can result in postoperative complications, including infection, lead and pulse generator complications, heart complications, medication-related complications, and psychosocial complications. To ensure optimal outcome of CIED placement, preprocedural measures need to be in place such as matching the right candidate and using appropriate devices. This review aims to highlight the surgical techniques for CIEDs, the associated postoperative complications, and long-term health effects.

Transvenous lead performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and pacemakers

BACKGROUND

After the reports of recalled leads, several technological improvements have been introduced and the durability of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads has improved. The incidence of lead failures is now less than in the previous studies. However, there are few reports that have shown the long-term durability of ICD leads as compared to pacemaker (PM) leads. This study analyzed the medium to long-term performance of transvenous ICD leads as compared to PM leads.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 1227 cases from April 2007 to December 2017 who underwent an initial transvenous ICD or PM implantation. The number of lead failures and patient background characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

During a median 3-3.5 years follow up period, 1 (0.3%) ICD lead and 18 (2.4%) PM leads failed. The incidence of lead failures was significantly higher in the PM group than ICD group (p = .019). Males were associated with a higher incidence of lead failures in the PM group.

CONCLUSION

Since the era of recalled ICD leads, the durability of ICD leads has remarkably improved and the incidence of lead failures with non-recalled ICD leads has been less than that for PM leads.

Remote monitoring and telemedicine in heart failure: implementation and benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is recommended as part of the individualized multidisciplinary follow-up of heart failure (HF) patients. Aim of this article is to critically review recent findings on RM, highlighting potential benefits and barriers to its implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Device-based RM is useful in the early detection of CIEDs technical issues and cardiac arrhythmias. Moreover, RM allows the continuous monitoring of several patients' clinical parameters associated with impending HF decompensation, but there is still uncertainty regarding its effectiveness in reducing mortality and hospitalizations. Implementation of RM strategies, together with a proactive physicians' attitude towards clinical actions in response to RM data reception, will make RM a more valuable tool, potentially leading to better outcomes.

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.

Decreased inappropriate shocks with new generation ICDs in children and patients with congenital heart disease

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks in children and patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) remain a major complication of device therapy, occurring in as many as 50% of children with ICDs. New generation devices include algorithms designed to minimize inappropriate shocks. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of new generation ICDs on the incidence of inappropriate shocks in the pediatric and CHD population.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of patients with CHD or under age 25 receiving ICDs between 2000 and 2015. New generation ICDs were defined as those with Medtronic "SmartShock" algorithms.

RESULTS

Two hundred eight devices were implanted in 146 patients. Rates of inappropriate shocks were similar between diagnoses (P = .71). The rate of inappropriate shock was 15% over median 5.8 years follow-up. In the 36 patients (25%) with new generation ICDs, the rate of inappropriate shock was 6.3% over 4 years. Comparing old to new generation ICDs, freedom from first inappropriate shock was 90.6% versus 97.1% at 1 year and 80.4% versus 97.1% at 3 years (P = .01). Lead fracture was associated with having inappropriate shock (hazard ratio 8.5, P < .0001), and there was no significant difference between the device groups when lead fractures were excluded. Clinical actions were taken in 69% of patients after initial inappropriate shock (such as medication or program change, system revision, or explant). When an action was taken, subsequent inappropriate shock was reduced (5.3% vs 49.2% at 1 year; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric and CHD patients are experiencing reduced inappropriate shocks with new generation ICD systems, though reduced lead fracture may account for this improvement. Clinical interventions after inappropriate shock favorably impact the subsequent rate of shocks once an inappropriate shock occurs.

Cable externalization and electrical failure of the Riata family of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Riata class of defibrillator leads were placed under US Food and Drug Association (FDA) advisory as of November 2011 because of high rates of cable externalization (CE) and electrical failure (EF). The overall rates of these complications remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to systematically search the literature for rates of Riata lead failure and to perform a meta-analysis to estimate failure rates.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies examining the rates of EF, CE, and the interaction of the two. We identified 23 English language manuscripts addressing 1 or more of these questions.

RESULTS

Across 23 studies, the overall CE rate was 23.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.0%-27.6%). The overall EF rate was 6.3% (95% CI 4.7%-8.2%). The presence of CE was associated with a more than 6-fold increase in the rate of EF compared to no CE (17.3% [95% CI 11.2%-25.9%] vs 2.7% [95% CI 1.4%-5.2%], respectively). The rate of CE was 3-fold higher for 8Fr leads compared to 7Fr leads, but rates of EF were similar (4.6%; 95% CI 3.2-6.6] and 3.9%; 95% CI 2.4-6.1], respectively). Rates of both CE and EF were higher in dual coil vs single coil leads, but confidence intervals overlapped.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, rates of CE in Riata leads are substantial. While CE is associated with a significant increase in the risk of EF, the incidence of EF without externalization is not trivial.

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.

Early fatigue fractures in the IS-1 connector leg of a small-diameter ICD lead: value of returned product analysis for improving device safety

BACKGROUND

Conductor fractures may affect the performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. During routine surveillance of returned product analyses (RPAs) in the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturers and User Facility Device Experience database, we found a number of conductor fractures in small diameter implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads manufactured by St Jude Medical, Inc (SJM, Sylmar, CA).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the location and cause of these fractures and to catalog their clinical signs and consequences.

METHODS

We searched the FDA's Manufacturers and User Facility Device Experience database on April 11, 2013. SJM provided information and data it collected independently.

RESULTS

Our search found 59 leads with fractures in the IS-1 leg. Most fractures were in leads implanted in 2008-2009; no fractures were found in leads implanted after 2010. Outer coil conductor fractures accounted for the majority (51 of 59, 86%). Oversensing and noise were common signs, and 81% of the patients received inappropriate shocks. SJM's RPAs found that the fractures were due to inadequate strain relief and redesigned the IS-1 leg by shortening the crimp bore. Younger age and subpectoral implants appeared to be associated with these fractures. SJM stated the incidence is low (0.040%) and has not seen further fractures of this type in leads with the modified crimp.

CONCLUSIONS

SJM's small diameter leads that were manufactured before 2011 are prone to early outer coil fatigue fractures in the IS-1 leg. The failure mechanism appears to have been mitigated by a design change. RPA is important for improving device safety.

Increasing lead burden correlates with externalized cables during systematic fluoroscopic screening of Riata leads

PURPOSE

Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA) have been recalled due to increased risk of insulation failure leading to externalized cables. As this mechanical failure does not necessarily correlate with electrical failure, it can be difficult to diagnose. Fluoroscopic screening can identify insulation failure. Studies have suggested that insulation failure is predominantly seen in 8-Fr, single-coil models. Our patients have exclusively dual-coil leads and a high proportion of 7-Fr leads.

METHODS

Fluoroscopic screening was performed in 48 patients with recalled Riata leads. Twenty-three patients had 8-Fr Riata leads and 25 patients had 7-Fr Riata ST leads. Images were recorded in at least three projections and studies were reviewed by seven attending electrophysiologists.

RESULTS

Externalized cables were seen in ten patients (21 %), and another five patients (10 %) had abnormal cable spacing. All device interrogations showed normal parameters. Patients with abnormal leads had more leads in situ (2.5 ± 0.7 vs. 1.6 ± 0.8 leads; P = 0.002) and a higher rate of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (80 vs. 24 %; P = 0.03). There were no differences between the groups with regards to patient age, body mass index, lead age, lead parameters, or vascular access site. There was no difference with regard to lead size (P = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

The Riata family of leads has a high incidence of mechanical failure, as demonstrated on fluoroscopic screening. In this study, the 7-Fr models were just as likely to mechanically fail as the 8-Fr models. Increasing lead burden and a diagnosis of nonischemic cardiomyopathy correlated with insulation failure.