Active Surveillance of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry for Defibrillator Lead Failures

Author:

Resnic Frederic S.123,Majithia Arjun124,Dhruva Sanket S.5,Ssemaganda Henry1,Robbins Susan1,Marinac-Dabic Danica6,Hewitt Kathleen7,Ohno-Machado Lucila8,Reynolds Matthew R.123,Matheny Michael E.910

Affiliation:

1. Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA (F.S.R., A.M., H.S., S.R., M.R.R.).

2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA (F.S.R., A.M., M.R.R.).

3. Tufts School of Medicine, Boston, MA (F.S.R., M.R.R.).

4. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA (A.M.).

5. UCSF School of Medicine and Section of Cardiology, San Francisco VA Health Care System (S.S.D.).

6. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), FDA, Silver Spring, MD (D.M.-D.).

7. National Cardiovascular Data Registry, American College of Cardiology, Washington, DC (K.H.).

8. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla (L.O.-M.).

9. Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Care Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System VA, Nashville (M.E.M.).

10. Departments of Biomedical Informatics, Biostatistics and Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN (M.E.M.).

Abstract

Background: Several defibrillator leads have been recalled due to early lead failure leading to significant patient harm. Confirming the safety of contemporary defibrillator leads is essential to optimizing treatment for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We therefore sought to assess the comparative long-term safety of the 4 most commonly implanted ICD leads within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Methods and Results: A propensity-matched survival analysis of the ICD Registry was performed evaluating 4 contemporary ICD leads in patients receiving an ICD system for the first time. All patients in the ICD Registry aged ≥18 years who underwent an implant of an ICD between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016 were included. Monitoring of safety began with ICD implant and continued up to 5 years. A meaningful difference in ICD failure rate was defined as twice (or more) the lead failure rate observed in the propensity-matched comparator patients. Among the 374 132 patients who received a new ICD implant, no safety alerts were triggered for the primary safety end point of lead failure for any of the high energy leads studied. Estimated rates of freedom from lead failure at 5 years ranged from 97.7% to 98.9% for the 4 high-energy leads of interest. Conclusions: Though limited by incomplete long-term outcomes ascertainment, active surveillance of the ICD Registry suggests that there were no meaningful differences in the rate of ICD high-energy lead survival for the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3