Early ICD lead failure in defibrillator systems with multiple leads via cephalic access.
ICD lead
cephalic
implantable cardioverter defibrillator
lead extraction
lead failure
vascular access
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
12
01
2020
revised:
02
04
2020
accepted:
07
04
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
13
4
2021
entrez:
2
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are proven to prevent sudden death in patients at elevated risk for sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Complications related to ICD failure can stem from lead dysfunction, manufacturing defects, patient characteristics, or implantation technique. We conducted a review of all ICD leads implanted at our center from 2011 to 2017 to determine risk factors for premature lead failure. We conducted a retrospective review of patients of all ICD leads implanted from December 2011 to June 2017 at our institution. A total of 660 patients (Biotronik Linox S/SD, n = 281; Sprint Quatro, n = 207; Durata, n = 121; Endotak, n = 51) underwent ICD implantations. Patient and lead characteristics, procedural outcomes and complications were recorded. Lead failure was defined per Heart Rhythm Society lead-management consensus as a lack of procedural or clinical success, thus requiring an extraction of the lead. Patient and lead outcomes were recorded and variables associated with lead failure were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall failure rate was similar for all leads: Linox S/SD-0.29%/year; Sprint Quattro-0.21%/year, Durata-0.39%/year and Endotak Reliance-0.0% (P = .769). No difference was found in overall survival when comparing all ICD manufacturers during the study period. Subgroup analysis revealed the risk of premature lead failure was particularly pronounced in multi-lead ICD systems implanted via cephalic access (P < .001). The estimated failure rate of Linox leads implanted via cephalic access in multi-lead systems was 19%/year. The estimated failure rate of non-Linox leads implanted via cephalic access in multi-lead systems was 11%/year. Neither age, nor gender were risk factors for lead failure in the Linox, or non-Linox cohorts. All analyzed ICD leads were found to have a similar overall risk of premature failure. ICD lead implantation via cephalic access in multilead ICD systems may be a previously unidentified risk factor for premature ICD lead failure, although these findings require further validation.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1462-1469Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Priori SG, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Mazzanti A, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: the task force for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death of the european society of cardiology (ESC) endorsed by: association for european paediatric and congenital cardiology (AEPC). Europace. 2015;17(11):1601-1687.
Kawada S, Nishii N, Morimoto Y, et al. Comparison of longevity and clinical outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:1496-1503.
Biotronik Product Performance Report January 2019.
Padfield GJ, Steinberg C, Karim SS, et al. Early failure of the Biotronik Linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26:274-281.
Noti F, Lam A, Klossner N, et al. Failure rate and conductor externalization in the Biotronik Linox/Sorin Vigila implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:1075-1082.
Good ED, Cakulev I, Orlov MV, et al. Long-term evaluation of biotronik linox and linox(smart) implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27:735-742.
van Malderen SC, Szili-Torok T, Yap SC, Hoeks SE, Zijlstra F, Theuns DA. Comparative study of the failure rates among 3 implantable defibrillator leads. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:2299-2305.
Weberndörfer V, Nyffenegger T, Russi I, et al. First time description of early lead failure of the Linox Smart lead compared to other contemporary high-voltage leads. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018;52:173-177.
O'Connor M, Hooks D, Webber M, et al. Long-term single-center comparison of ICD lead survival: evidence for premature Linox lead failure. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29:1024-1031.
McKeag NA, Noad RL, Ashfield K, Wilson CM, McEneaney DJ, Roberts MJD. Prospective assessment of linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads for structural or electrical abnormalities. Adv Ther. 2018;35:666-670.
Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL, et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(12):e503-e551.
Dewland TA, Pellegrini CN, Wang Y, Marcus GM, Keung E, Varosy PD. Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator selection is associated with increased complication rates and mortality among patients enrolled in the NCDR implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1007-1013.
Peterson PN, Varosy PD, Heidenreich PA, et al. Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention. JAMA. 2013;309:2025-2034.
Friedman PA, McClelland RL, Bamlet WR, et al. Dual-chamber versus single-chamber detection enhancements for implantable defibrillator rhythm diagnosis: the detect supraventricular tachycardia study. Circulation. 2006;113:2871-2879.
Gallik DM, Ben-Zur UM, Gross JN, Furman S. Lead fracture in cephalic versus subclavian approach with transvenous implantable-cardioverter systems. PACE. 1996;19:1089-1094.
Liccardo M, Nocerino P, Gaia S, Ciardiello C. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary/subclavian venous approaches for pacemaker and defibrillator lead implantation: a randomized study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018;51:153-160.
Esmaiel A, Hassan J, Blenkhorn F, Mardigyan V. The use of ultrasound to improve axillary vein access and minimize complications during pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39:478-482.