Clinical performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead monitoring diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead monitoring diagnostic alerts facilitate the diagnosis of structural lead failure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively study the performance of Medtronic ICD lead monitoring alerts. METHODS: A prespecified ancillary substudy, World-Wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial, was conducted in patients with an ICD with all available alerts enabled. The investigators reported possible lead system events (LSEs), with or without an alert. An independent committee reviewed all data and classified events as lead failure, other LSE, or nonlead system events (NLEs). RESULTS: In 4942 patients who were followed for 19.4 ± 8.7 months, there were 124 alerts (65 LSEs, 59 NLEs) and 19 LSEs without an alert. Lead monitoring alerts had 100% sensitivity for the 48 adjudicated lead failures (95% confidence interval 92.6%-100%) and for 10 events adjudicated as either lead failure or connection issue. The positive predictive value of alerts for lead failure was 38.7% (48 of 124). For 34 pace-sense lead failures, an alert that incorporated oversensing was more sensitive than the pacing impedance threshold alert (33 patients [97.1%] vs 9 patients [26.5%]; P < .0001). However, the sensitivity was only 13.6% for lead dislodgments or perforations. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 2 patients with pace-sense lead failure (5.9%). No patient had unnecessary lead replacement for any of the NLEs. CONCLUSION: In this first real-world prospective study, lead monitoring alerts had 100% sensitivity for identifying lead failures. Although their positive predictive value was modest, no false-positive alerts resulted in an unnecessary lead replacement. For the diagnosis of pace-sense lead failure, an alert for oversensing was more sensitive than a pacing impedance threshold alert. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02277990.

The prevalence of periodontal disease measures in elderly adults, aged 79 and older.

From 1996-98, we examined 449 adults (mean age 85 years) from the 1982 Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study, in the field using headlight, mirror, and periodontal probe. Ninety-six of the 342 dentate subjects were excluded from the follow-up examination due to contraindications to probing, and 10 could not be assessed due to refusals, fatigue or other reasons. For all remaining subjects (n=236), attachment loss, defined as recession plus probing depth, was determined at four sites per tooth. Ninety-one percent of the subjects had at least one site with 4+ mm of attachment loss, 45% had one or more sites with attachment loss of 6+ mm, and 15% had 8+ mm of attachment loss. Moderate periodontal disease is prevalent among very old dentate adults while advanced periodontal disease is much less prevalent, suggesting that most periodontal treatment needed by this age group can be provided by general dentists and dental hygienists rather than periodontists.