Cargando…

Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered as the ‘weakest link’ in defibrillator systems due to FDA recalls and advisories involving popular lead models from major manufacturers. The rate of electrical failure of ICD leads not implicated in a recall is however not...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khattak, Furqan, Gupta, Aman, Alluri, Krishna, Shariff, Nasir, Saba, Samir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6531633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30576743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2018.12.001
_version_ 1783420865733459968
author Khattak, Furqan
Gupta, Aman
Alluri, Krishna
Shariff, Nasir
Saba, Samir
author_facet Khattak, Furqan
Gupta, Aman
Alluri, Krishna
Shariff, Nasir
Saba, Samir
author_sort Khattak, Furqan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered as the ‘weakest link’ in defibrillator systems due to FDA recalls and advisories involving popular lead models from major manufacturers. The rate of electrical failure of ICD leads not implicated in a recall is however not well determined. METHODS: Medical records of patients implanted with ICDs at hospitals of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2002 and 2014 were analyzed. Leads were classified as having electrically failed if removed or replaced for reasons other than infection or heart transplantation. Patients were followed to endpoint of death or electrical lead failure. RESULTS: 2410 consecutive ICD recipients (mean age 66 ± 13 years, women 22%, single/dual/biventricular-ICD 20%/44%/36%) were included. During a mean follow-up of 3.9 ± 3.3 years, 1272 patients (53%) died, 55 patients (2.3%) had ICD lead electrical failure, and 1052 (44%) patients were alive with functional leads at the time of last follow-up. Patients with failed leads had higher BMI (p = 0.07), better functional status (p = 0.04), higher serum creatinine (p = 0.004), wider QRS complex (p = 0.01), higher number of implanted leads (p = 0.06) and were more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (p = 0.03). After adjusting for these variables in a binary logistic regression model, only a lower BMI, presence of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and a better functional status remained independently predictive of electrical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Only 2.3% of non-recalled ICD leads experience electrical failure (annual failure rate of 0.6%). A higher patient functional status, lower BMI, and non-ischemic etiology of cardiomyopathy are independently associated with higher rates of ICD lead failure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6531633
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65316332019-05-28 Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads Khattak, Furqan Gupta, Aman Alluri, Krishna Shariff, Nasir Saba, Samir Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Original Article BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered as the ‘weakest link’ in defibrillator systems due to FDA recalls and advisories involving popular lead models from major manufacturers. The rate of electrical failure of ICD leads not implicated in a recall is however not well determined. METHODS: Medical records of patients implanted with ICDs at hospitals of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2002 and 2014 were analyzed. Leads were classified as having electrically failed if removed or replaced for reasons other than infection or heart transplantation. Patients were followed to endpoint of death or electrical lead failure. RESULTS: 2410 consecutive ICD recipients (mean age 66 ± 13 years, women 22%, single/dual/biventricular-ICD 20%/44%/36%) were included. During a mean follow-up of 3.9 ± 3.3 years, 1272 patients (53%) died, 55 patients (2.3%) had ICD lead electrical failure, and 1052 (44%) patients were alive with functional leads at the time of last follow-up. Patients with failed leads had higher BMI (p = 0.07), better functional status (p = 0.04), higher serum creatinine (p = 0.004), wider QRS complex (p = 0.01), higher number of implanted leads (p = 0.06) and were more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (p = 0.03). After adjusting for these variables in a binary logistic regression model, only a lower BMI, presence of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and a better functional status remained independently predictive of electrical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Only 2.3% of non-recalled ICD leads experience electrical failure (annual failure rate of 0.6%). A higher patient functional status, lower BMI, and non-ischemic etiology of cardiomyopathy are independently associated with higher rates of ICD lead failure. Elsevier 2018-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6531633/ /pubmed/30576743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2018.12.001 Text en © 2018 Indian Heart Rhythm Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Khattak, Furqan
Gupta, Aman
Alluri, Krishna
Shariff, Nasir
Saba, Samir
Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads
title Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads
title_full Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads
title_fullStr Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads
title_full_unstemmed Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads
title_short Rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads
title_sort rate and predictors of electrical failure in non-recalled defibrillator leads
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6531633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30576743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2018.12.001
work_keys_str_mv AT khattakfurqan rateandpredictorsofelectricalfailureinnonrecalleddefibrillatorleads
AT guptaaman rateandpredictorsofelectricalfailureinnonrecalleddefibrillatorleads
AT allurikrishna rateandpredictorsofelectricalfailureinnonrecalleddefibrillatorleads
AT shariffnasir rateandpredictorsofelectricalfailureinnonrecalleddefibrillatorleads
AT sabasamir rateandpredictorsofelectricalfailureinnonrecalleddefibrillatorleads