Comparison of the performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers
- 16 Downloads
Leads are often considered the weakest link in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, and lead dysfunction is a major concern for ICD recipients. The aim of this study was to compare the lead performance from three different manufacturers.
We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent ICD system implantation at Chiba University Hospital, Japan, between March 2008 and September 2017. The following leads were implanted in our center: Durata (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA, now Abbott) (n = 105), Linox and LinoxSmart (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) (n = 66), and Sprint Quattro (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 126).
A total of 297 ICD leads were analyzed. Failure rates for Durata, Linox/LinoxSmart, and Sprint Quattro were 0.20%/patient year, 0.95%/patient year, and 1.84%/patient year, respectively, during a mean follow-up of 4.8, 6.4, and 3.0 years, respectively. The cumulative ICD lead survival probability was 98.9%, 100%, and 87.5%, after 5 years, respectively. The survival probability over the entire follow-up time as measured by the log-rank test was lower for Sprint Quattro leads than for either Durata (p = 0.011) or Linox/LinoxSmart (p = 0.028). The difference between Durata and Linox/LinoxSmart was not significant (p = 0.393).
In this single-center retrospective study, the performance of Sprint Quattro was lower than the performance of Linox/LinoxSmart and Durata leads. Large-scale, multi-center studies or manufacturer-independent registries may be necessary to confirm or reject self-reported survival probabilities from manufacturers’ product performance reports.
KeywordsImplantable cardioverter-defibrillator Lead Durata Linox Quattro
Compliance with ethical standards
The investigation was approved by the local ethics committee.
Conflict of interest
Dr. Kondo received research grants from Abbott Japan, Biotronik Japan, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kobayashi received research grants from Abbott Japan, Biotronik Japan, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic Japan. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 17.Mann IE, Segal OR. A case of Durata ICD lead coil externalization: inside-out lead abrasion? Heart Rhythm Case Rep. 2016;2:283–5.Google Scholar
- 18.Lau EW, Roberts MJD. Inside-out abrasion and contained conductor cable externalization in a defibrillation lead with asymmetric conductor cable lumen distribution. Heart Rhythm Case Rep. 2018;4:121–6.Google Scholar
- 25.Abbott. Product performance report 2018 First Edition. https://www.sjm.com/en/professionals/resources-and-reimbursement/technical-resources/product-performance-report. Accessed August 4th, 2019
- 26.BIOTRONIK. Product performance report July 2018. https://www.biotronik.com/en-us/healthcare-professionals/product-performance-report. Accessed August 4th, 2019
- 27.Medtronic. Product performance report 2018 1st Edition. http://wwwp.medtronic.com/productperformance/past-reports.html. Accessed August 4th, 2019
- 32.McKeag NA, Noad RL, Ashfield K, et al. Prospective assessment of Linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads for structural or electrical abnormalities. Adv Ther. 2018:1–5.Google Scholar
- 33.Ząbek A, Boczar K, Dębski M, et al. Analysis of electrical lead failures in patients referred for transvenous lead extraction procedures. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018:1–7.Google Scholar