The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® lead history revisited-Extended follow-up of passive leads

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.

Management and long-term outcomes associated with recalled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

No comparative study of outcomes in Riata and Sprint Fidelis leads undergoing lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment (LA), and generator change only (GC) has been published.

OBJECTIVES

Determine outcomes (major complications [MC]; death, extended hospitalization, or rehospitalization within 60 days [RH]; lead malfunction) of LE, LA, and GC for recalled leads.

METHODS

Retrospective, multicenter, comparative study.

RESULTS

A total of 298 LE, 85 LA, and 310 GC were performed. In the clinical setting of a lead intervention, there was no difference in a composite of MC, death, RH, lead revision, inappropriate shocks, or device infection between LE and LA groups (15% vs 22%, P = .140). In the clinical setting of a device at elective replacement interval (ERI), there were significantly more acute events at 60 days (MC, death, and RH) in the LE and LA groups at 15.4% (4) and 15.4% (4), and this was significantly (P = .017) higher than the GC group at 5.1% (16). There was no difference (P = 1.000) in the composite of MC, death, RH, lead malfunction, lead revisions, device infections, or inappropriate shocks between LE, LA, and GC groups at 15.4% (4), 15.4% (4), and 17.4% (54), respectively. Following generator change, 14 of 175 Fidelis leads and 3 of 135 Riata leads failed over a total of 12,714 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The failure rate of recalled leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. It may be prudent to perform generator change only when the device is at ERI, especially when the recalled lead has historical performance that likely outweighs the risks of extraction/abandonment.