Near-Fatal ICD Lead Dysfunction with Implications for ICD Testing

Low-voltage shock impedance measurements: A false sense of security

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators use low-voltage shock impedance measurements to monitor the lead integrity. However, previous case reports suggest that low-voltage shock impedance measurements may fail to detect insulation breaches that can cause life-threatening electrical short circuits.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We report six cases of insulation breaches in transvenous defibrillation leads that were not obvious during standard interrogations and testing of the lead beforehand. In two cases, an electrical short circuit during commanded shock delivery for internal electrical cardioversion resulted in a total damage of the ICD generator. In one of these cases, commanded shock delivery induced ventricular fibrillation, which required external defibrillation. In two cases, a shock due to ventricular tachycardia was aborted as the shock impedance was less than 20 Ω. However, in both cases the tiny residual shock energy terminated the ventricular tachycardia. In contrast, in one case the residual energy of the aborted shock did not end ventricular fibrillation induced at defibrillator threshold testing. In one case, the ICD indicated an error code for a short circuit condition detected during an adequate shock delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series illustrates that low-voltage shock impedance measurements can fail to detect insulation breaches. These data suggest that in patients without a contraindication, traditional defibrillator threshold testing or high voltage synchronized shock at the time of device replacement should be considered.

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.

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.