Search

Background Lead malfunction is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We have shown that the failure of recalled high-voltage leads significantly increases after ICD generator replacement. However, generator replacement has not been recognized as a predictor of lead failure in general. Objective The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of ICD generator exchange on the rate of ICD lead alerts. Methods A time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze a database of remotely monitored ICDs. The model assessed the impact of generator exchange on the rate of lead alerts after ICD generator replacement. Results The analysis included 60,219 patients followed for 37 ± 19 months. The 5-year lead survival was 99.3% (95% confidence interval 99.2%–99.4%). Of 60,219 patients, 7458 patients (12.9%) underwent ICD generator exchange without lead replacement. After generator replacement, the rate of lead alerts was more than 5-fold higher than in controls with leads of the same age without generator replacement (hazard ratio 5.19; 95% confidence interval 3.45–7.84). A large number of lead alerted within 3 months of generator replacement. Lead alerts were more common in patients with single- vs dual-chamber ICDs and in younger patients. Sex was not associated with lead alerts. Conclusion Routine generator replacement is associated with a 5-fold higher risk of lead alert compared to age-matched leads without generator replacement. This suggests the need for intense surveillance after generator replacement and the development of techniques to minimize the risk of lead damage during generator replacement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead is at an increased risk for failure and was recalled in October 2007. Approximately 268,000 leads were implanted, and more than 100,000 patients still have active Fidelis leads. A number of studies have examined the rate and clinical predictors of lead failure, but none has addressed the effect of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator exchange on subsequent lead failure. Although the manufacturer asserts that “Sprint Fidelis performance after device change-out is similar to lead performance without device change-out,” published data are lacking. Objective: To assess the effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator exchange on the rate of Fidelis lead failure. Methods: A chart review was conducted in patients who underwent implantation of a Fidelis lead. Patients with a functioning Fidelis lead at generator exchange were compared with controls with leads implanted for a comparable amount of time not undergoing ICD replacement. Results: A total of 1366 patients received a Fidelis lead prior to the recall, of which 479 were still actively followed. Seventy-two patients with a functioning lead underwent generator exchange without lead replacement. Following generator replacement, 15 leads failed. Sixty percent of the Fidelis leads failed within 3 months. Generator exchange increased the rate of lead failure compared with matched controls (20.8% vs 2.54%; P < .001). Conclusions: Generator exchange is associated with a higher than expected rate of Fidelis lead failure, often within 3 months. The risk-benefit ratio of Fidelis lead replacement at the time of generator exchange may be greater than appreciated. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]