4.5 Article

Risk of Failure of Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads

Journal

CIRCULATION-ARRHYTHMIA AND ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages 411-416

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.108.834093

Keywords

implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; lead; failure; defibrillation

Funding

  1. GE Healthcare
  2. BMS Medical Imaging
  3. Edwards Lifesciences
  4. Boston Scientific
  5. Medtronic
  6. Biotronik
  7. St Jude

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Despite the positive effect on mortality in selected patients, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy is also associated with potential malfunction of the implanted system. The present study provides the long-term lead failure rate in a large single-center cohort. Methods and Results-Since 1992, a total of 2068 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients with 2161 defibrillation leads were prospectively collected. Data of the implant procedure and all follow-up visits were recorded. All cases of lead removal or capping or placing of an additional pace or sense lead were noted and analyzed. Lead models were grouped by manufacturer and approximate lead diameter in French. During a mean follow-up of 36 months, 82 (3.8%) cases of lead failure were identified. Cumulative incidence of lead failure at 1 year was 0.6%; at 5 years, 6.5%; and at 10 years, 16.4%. The highest risk of lead failure was found in small-diameter leads. Adjusted hazard ratio was 6.4 (95% CI, 3.2 to 12.8) for Medtronic 7F leads, when compared with all other leads. Conclusions-In this large single-center experience, the overall incidence of lead failure was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6) per 100 lead-years. Comparison of different groups of leads shows major differences in event rates. Specific manufacturer's small-diameter defibrillation leads may have a higher risk of early lead failure. (Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2009;2:411-416.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available