Heart rhythm · 2008
Outcome of the Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead advisory: a report from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Krahn Andrew D, Champagne Jean, Healey Jeffrey S, Cameron Doug, Simpson Christopher S, Thibault Bernard, Mangat Iqwal, Tung Stanley, Sterns Laurence, Birnie David H, Exner Derek V, Parkash Ratika, Sivakumaran Soori, Davies Ted, Coutu Benoit, Crystal Eugene, Wolfe Kevin, Verma Atul, Stephenson Elizabeth A, Sanatani Shubhayan, Gow Robert, Connors Sean, Paredes Felix Ayala, Essebag Vidal, Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis family of leads has recently been the subject of a widespread advisory. Lead failure rates are estimated at 2.3% at 30 months, 2.6 times the failure rate of the reference Medtronic 6947 lead.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to contact pediatric and adult implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant centers across Canada to determine the short-term response to the October 15, 2007 Medtronic Fidelis lead advisory.
METHODS: All centers completed an 11-part survey to assess the frequency and presentation of lead failure, operator characteristics, and center's response.
RESULTS: Lead failure was noted in 80 (1.29%) of 6,181 patients at 21.0 months, with inappropriate shocks experienced in 45 (56%) of the 80 patients (overall risk 0.73%). No deaths were attributed to lead failure. Sensing was the primary form of failure, seen in 60 leads (75%), with pacing failure in 10 (13%), and high-voltage failure in 15 (19%). Assessment of the previous routine ICD interrogation prior to the advisory or lead failure demonstrated evidence of altered lead performance in only 8 (10%) of the 80 leads. Inappropriate shocks typically were multiple (median 7, range 1-122), with a single shock seen in only 5 patients. Lead failure was noted in 18 of 23 centers, representing 89.8% of leads implanted, with at least one failure noted in 15 of 16 centers that implanted more than 200 leads. Forty-seven of the 135 operators in the 23 institutions implanted the 80 leads that subsequently failed. Only 16 operators were involved in more than a single lead that subsequently failed; seven operators participated in three or more leads that subsequently failed. Seven centers planned to replace leads in most pacing-dependent patients, and two centers planned to replace leads in patients unable to hear the alert tone.
CONCLUSION: This national experience suggests a Fidelis lead failure rate of 1.29% at 21 months, most often presenting with multiple inappropriate shocks without evidence of impending failure from routine lead follow-up. Lead failure did not appear to cluster around specific operators or around high-volume or low-volume implant centers.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to contact pediatric and adult implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant centers across Canada to determine the short-term response to the October 15, 2007 Medtronic Fidelis lead advisory.
METHODS: All centers completed an 11-part survey to assess the frequency and presentation of lead failure, operator characteristics, and center's response.
RESULTS: Lead failure was noted in 80 (1.29%) of 6,181 patients at 21.0 months, with inappropriate shocks experienced in 45 (56%) of the 80 patients (overall risk 0.73%). No deaths were attributed to lead failure. Sensing was the primary form of failure, seen in 60 leads (75%), with pacing failure in 10 (13%), and high-voltage failure in 15 (19%). Assessment of the previous routine ICD interrogation prior to the advisory or lead failure demonstrated evidence of altered lead performance in only 8 (10%) of the 80 leads. Inappropriate shocks typically were multiple (median 7, range 1-122), with a single shock seen in only 5 patients. Lead failure was noted in 18 of 23 centers, representing 89.8% of leads implanted, with at least one failure noted in 15 of 16 centers that implanted more than 200 leads. Forty-seven of the 135 operators in the 23 institutions implanted the 80 leads that subsequently failed. Only 16 operators were involved in more than a single lead that subsequently failed; seven operators participated in three or more leads that subsequently failed. Seven centers planned to replace leads in most pacing-dependent patients, and two centers planned to replace leads in patients unable to hear the alert tone.
CONCLUSION: This national experience suggests a Fidelis lead failure rate of 1.29% at 21 months, most often presenting with multiple inappropriate shocks without evidence of impending failure from routine lead follow-up. Lead failure did not appear to cluster around specific operators or around high-volume or low-volume implant centers.