Late Manifestation of Coronary Sinus and Left Atrial Perforation of a Left Ventricular Pacemaker Lead at Extraction

Electrical abnormalities with St. Jude/Abbott pacing leads: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although there is a paucity of contemporary data on pacemaker lead survival rates, small studies suggest that some leads may have higher malfunction rates than do others.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the malfunction rates of current pacemaker leads.

METHODS

A meta-analysis including studies that examined the non-implant-related lead malfunction rates of current commercially available active fixation pacemaker leads was performed. An electronic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was performed. DerSimonian and Laird random effects models were used.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 14,579 leads were included. Abbott accounted for 10,838 (74%), Medtronic 2510 (17%), Boston Scientific 849 (6%), and MicroPort 382 (3%) leads. The weighted mean follow-up period was 3.6 years. Lead abnormalities occurred in 5.0% of all leads, 6.1% of Abbott leads, 1.1% of Medtronic, 1.4% of Boston Scientific, and 5.5% of MicroPort. The most common lead abnormality was lead noise with normal impedance. Abbott leads were associated with an increased risk of abnormalities (relative risk [RR] 7.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.21-19.04), reprogramming (RR 7.95; 95% CI 3.55-17.82), and lead revision or extraction (RR 8.91; 95% CI 3.36-23.60). Abbott leads connected to an Abbott generator had the highest abnormality rate (8.0%) followed by Abbott leads connected to a non-Abbott generator (4.7%) and non-Abbott leads connected to an Abbott generator (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Abbott leads are associated with an increased risk of abnormalities compared with leads of other manufacturers, primarily manifesting as lead noise with normal impedance, and are associated with an increased risk of lead reprogramming and lead revision or extraction.