Search

Background An early failure of Biotronik Linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads has been reported from several centers. Aim To compare the performance of Linox ICD leads with different other ICD leads as a report of the Sheba Medical Center experience. Methods All patients who had implantation of Linox ICD leads between 2007 and 2016 were included in this study. ICD lead failure was defined as low- or high-voltage impedance; failure to capture, sense, or defibrillate; or the presence of nonphysiological signals not due to external interference. The survival probability of Linox leads was determined and compared to Medtronic Sprint Quattro ICD leads. Results A total of 340 patients (age 64.4 ± 1.8 years) were included in this analysis. They were followed up to 105 months (mean 45.7 ± 7, median 44 (Interquartile range (IQR) 26-63) months). Twelve patients (3.5%) met the criteria for lead failure within 61.2 ± 22.9 months (median 66.5 [IQR 48-85 months]) post implantation. Noise with inappropriate ventricular arrhythmias detection, with or without therapy, was seen in 10 patients (83%). High pacing thresholds and high impedances were detected in two patients (17%). The survival probability of Linox leads at 60 months (97.3%) was similar to the survival probability of Sprint Quattro leads (98.2%) (P = .58). Nevertheless, the survival probability at 105 months was much lower (81% vs 97%, Linox ICD lead and Sprint Quattro lead, respectively, P = .0039). Conclusion Linox ICD leads have higher late failure rates compared to Sprint Quattro leads. These findings need to be confirmed in larger scale studies.

Aims Anodal stimulation (ANS) is a recognized phenomenon among patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); this is noted during left ventricular (LV) pacing by the LV tip to right ventricular (RV) ring configuration. Its incidence varies according to the implanted hardware. We aim at evaluating the incidence of ANS and its acute haemodynamic effects among CRT patients. Methods and results We screened all our patients who previously had an implanted CRT-P/D devices for ANS. After excluding all non-eligible devices, the initial screening was done by evaluating the programmer electrocardiogram (ECG) during device interrogation while pacing LV only from LV tip to RV ring. Those with ANS underwent screening by 12-lead ECG during biventricular pacing with VV interval programmed to 0. Patients with electrocardiographic evidence of ANS underwent detailed echocardiography. We screened 224 patients, 187 patients were excluded due to various causes. Thirty-seven subjects were analysed for this study. Anodal stimulation was found in 29 patients (78.4%) by primary screening. Twelve patients (41.4%) showed electrocardiographic evidence of ANS by 12-lead ECG. The ANS threshold was significantly higher than true bipolar LV threshold (4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.1 ± 0.3 V, respectively, P = < 0.0001). Ten patients, with ECG evidence of ANS, underwent detailed echocardiography during biventricular pacing with and without ANS. Overall, there were no significant differences in the haemodynamic, echocardiographic, or resynchronization effects with and without ANS, two patients showed significant reduction in LV function with ANS. Conclusion Anodal stimulation is a common phenomenon among CRT patients. In many cases ANS is seen with LV pacing only, while these changes may not be seen by ECG during biventricular pacing. Echocardiography did not show any significant acute haemodynamic benefit during ANS, and some patients may even deteriorate.

Aims To compare different coronary sinus (CS) leads and delivery systems (DSs) for left ventricular pacing. Methods and results Delivery systems-related (including CS dissection and dislocations during sheath/stylet removal) and lead-related (including failure to accomplish implantations and long-term malfunctions resulting in abandonment or repositioning/replacing of the lead) complications between systems and leads were compared. We used Medtronic (MDT) attain® DS ( n = 123) with over-the-wire (OTW) (4193, 4194) and stylet-driven (2187) leads, and Guidant (GDT)® DS ( n = 126) with Easytrak OTW leads (4513, 4518, and 4525). Coronory sinus dissection occurred in 6/123 (5%) cases using the MDT DS vs. 7/126 (6%) with GDT DS ( P = NS). Dislocations during sheath/stylet removal occurred in 8/123 cases (6%) with MDT DS, and in 8/126 (6%) with GDT DS ( P = NS). Failure to achieve successful implantation occurred in 6/32 (19%) of the 2187 leads, in 11/87(13%) of the 4193/4194 leads, in 7/94(7%) of the 4513/4518 leads, and in 4/29 (14%) of the 4525 leads ( P = NS). Long-term lead-related complications occurred in 5/32 (15%) of the 2187 leads, 19/80 (23%) of the 4193/4194 leads, 19/93 (20%) of the 4513/4518 leads, and 2/28 (7%) of the 4525 leads ( P = NS). Conclusion No significant differences in complication rates between systems and leads were observed.