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

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation: a long-standing debate

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to improve cardiac function, reduce heart failure hospitalizations, improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and intraventricular conduction disturbances, mainly left bundle branch block, on optimal medical therapy with ACE-inhibitors, β-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists up-titrated to maximum tolerated evidence-based doses. CRT can be achieved by means of pacemaker systems (CRT-P) or devices with defibrillation capabilities (CRT-D). CRT-Ds offer an undoubted advantage in the prevention of arrhythmic death, but such an advantage may be of lesser degree in non-ischemic heart failure aetiologies. Moreover, the higher CRT-D hardware complexity compared to CRT-P may predispose to device/lead malfunctions and the higher current drainage may cause a shorter battery duration with consequent premature replacements and the well-known incremental complications. In a period of financial constraints, also device costs should be carefully evaluated, with recent reports suggesting that CRT-Ps may be favoured over CRT-Ds in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and no prior history of cardiac arrhythmias from a cost-effectiveness point of view. The choice between a CRT-P or a CRT-D device should be patient-tailored whenever straightforward defibrillator indications are not present. The Goldenberg score may facilitate this decision-making process in ambiguous settings. Age, comorbidities, kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, advanced functional class, inappropriate therapy risk, implantable device infections and malfunctions are factors potentially reducing the expected benefit from defibrillating capabilities. Future prospective, randomized controlled trials are warranted to directly compare the efficacy and safety of CRT-Ps and CRT-Ds.

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.