Development and validation of a risk score to predict early mortality in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines do not recommend implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with a life expectancy of <1 year. Better methods are needed for identifying patients at high risk for early mortality despite ICD therapy. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a risk prediction score to identify patients at high risk for death within 1 year despite ICD therapy. DESIGN: Detailed clinical data were collected on a large observational cohort of ICD patients from 3 tertiary care centers. One-third of the patients were randomly selected to form the prediction group (PG) from which a risk score was developed using logistic regression. This score was then applied to the remaining two-thirds of the cohort (validation group [VG]) to assess the risk score's predictive accuracy. RESULTS: The total cohort included 2717 ICD patients (mean age = 64.6 ± 14.5, male = 77.2%, primary prevention = 74.7%). A simple risk score incorporating peripheral arterial disease, age ≥ 70 years, creatinine ≥ 2.0 mg/dL, and ejection fraction ≤20% (PACE) accurately predicted 1-year mortality in the VG. Patients with a risk score of ≥3 had a >4-fold excess 1-year mortality compared with patients with a risk score of <3 (16.5% vs 3.5%; P <.0001). LIMITATION: Risk reduction provided by ICD therapy in this cohort is not known given the lack of a control group. CONCLUSIONS: A simple risk score accurately predicts 1-year mortality in ICD patients, as patients with a PACE risk score of ≥3 are at high risk despite ICD therapy.

Impact of implanted recalled sprint Fidelis lead on patient mortality.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare all-cause mortality in patients with Fidelis leads (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) to those with a nonadvisory lead. BACKGROUND: Although Fidelis leads are prone to fracture, and rare deaths due to lead failure have been reported, it is unclear whether the presence of a Fidelis lead is associated with increased mortality. This study compares all-cause mortality in a large cohort of patients with Fidelis and Quattro implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads. METHODS: All patients with Fidelis (Medtronic models 6931, 6948, and 6949) and Quattro (Medtronic model 6947) leads followed at 3 tertiary care centers were identified from the medical records (implant dates: November 19, 2001, to December 23, 2008). Clinical and device-specific data were collected into a common database. Deaths were identified from medical records and the Social Security Death Index. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 2,671 patients (1,030 Fidelis and 1,641 Quattro) were identified. There were 398 deaths: 147 in the Fidelis group (mean follow-up: 34.4 months) and 251 in the Quattro group (mean follow-up: 39.9 months). No deaths were associated with 85 Fidelis and 23 Quattro failures. At 4 years, survival was diminished in patients with Fidelis compared with Quattro leads (80.7% vs. 83.9%, p = 0.025). After adjustment for factors associated with mortality, survival was similar between groups. One hundred percent pacing was not associated with mortality. Elective removal of nonfailed leads was performed in 5.1% of Fidelis and 0.9% of Quattro patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a conservatively managed cohort, in whom observation was predominantly utilized, adjusted survival is similar between patients with Fidelis and Quattro ICD leads.

Longevity of Sprint Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads and risk factors for failure: implications for patient management.

BACKGROUND: Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads are prone to fractures that have caused adverse events, primarily inappropriate shocks, and a few reported deaths. More than 100 000 patients have Fidelis leads. No independent multicenter long-term performance information exists for this lead, and single-center studies suggest that certain patients are at increased risk for Fidelis failure. Our aim was to assess the longevity of Fidelis leads and to evaluate clinical variables and adverse events associated with Fidelis failure. The results were compared with like data for Quattro Secure (Quattro) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads implanted at our centers. METHODS AND RESULTS: This 3-center study included adults ≥18 years of age who received Fidelis or Quattro leads for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. From November 2001 to January 2009,1023 Fidelis and 1668 Quattro leads were implanted and followed up. The failure rate for Fidelis leads was 2.81%/y compared with 0.43%/y for Quattro leads (P<0.0001). No deaths or injuries occurred as a result of lead failure, but 42% of fractures caused inappropriate shocks. The survival of Fidelis leads at 4 years was 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 83.6 to 90.1) compared with 98.7% (95% confidence interval, 97.9 to 99.4) for Quattro leads (P<0.0001). Multivariate predictors of Fidelis failure were younger age (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 0.99), female gender (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 1.00), and cardiac disease (P=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Quattro leads, the survival of Fidelis leads continues to decline, and Fidelis failure is notably higher in younger patients, women, individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia or channelopathies. These findings have significant implications for the management of patients who have Fidelis leads, and they demonstrate the importance of weighing clinical variables in assessments of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead performance.

Lead integrity alert algorithm decreases inappropriate shocks in patients who have Sprint Fidelis pace-sense conductor fractures.

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead is prone to fracture. The majority of fractures involve the pace-sense (P/S) conductors and may result in multiple inappropriate shocks. The Medtronic lead integrity alert (LIA) algorithm was designed to improve early detection of transient P/S conductor fractures and to decrease the incidence and number of inappropriate shocks. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective single-center study was to assess the effectiveness of the LIA algorithm for warning patients of an impending Sprint Fidelis P/S conductor fracture and for decreasing the incidence and number of inappropriate shocks. METHODS: The study population included all patients who had Sprint Fidelis leads and Medtronic ICD pulse generators that were implanted and followed at the Minneapolis Heart Institute. Patients were evaluated in the clinic every 3 to 4 months or by remote monitoring using the Medtronic CareLink system. When the LIA algorithm was released in August 2008, the RAMware was downloaded to the pulse generator of all patients with the Sprint Fidelis lead. Patients and family members received educational materials and were given a demonstration of the audible alerts. RESULTS: Between October 2004 and January 2010, 52 (11.3%) of 461 Sprint Fidelis leads failed in the study population. Inappropriate shocks were the first sign of lead failure in 18 (69%) of the 26 patients who did not have the LIA compared to 4 (17%) of 23 patients who had the LIA (P = .0004). Patients who experienced inappropriate shocks without the LIA received an average of 13.2 +/- 13.6 inappropriate shocks (range 2-54) versus 3.0 +/- 2.0 inappropriate shocks (range 2-6) in patients who had the LIA (P = .017). The audible alert was effective in 70% (16/23) and 35% (6/17) of patients with and without the LIA, respectively, whose alerts were programmed ON (P = .053). Overall, 8 (32%) of 25 patients whose audible alerts were triggered did not immediately hear or recognize the tone. CONCLUSION: The LIA appears to be an effective method for detecting most Sprint Fidelis lead fractures and for decreasing the incidence and number of inappropriate shocks. However, a better method for alerting patients and caregivers is needed.

Deaths and cardiovascular injuries due to device-assisted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker lead extraction.

AIMS: An estimated 10,000-15,000 pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are extracted annually worldwide using specialized tools that disrupt encapsulating fibrous tissue. Additional information is needed regarding the safety of the devices that have been approved for lead extraction. The aim of this study was to determine whether complications due to device-assisted lead extraction might be more hazardous than published data suggest, and whether procedural safety precautions are effective. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturers and User Defined Experience (MAUDE) database from 1995 to 2008 using the search terms 'lead extraction and death' and 'lead extraction and injury'. Additional product specific searches were performed for the terms 'death' and 'injury'. Between 1995 and 2008, 57 deaths and 48 serious cardiovascular injuries associated with device-assisted lead extraction were reported to the FDA. Owing to underreporting, the FDA database does not contain all adverse events that occurred during this period. Of the 105 events, 27 deaths and 13 injuries occurred in 2007-2008. During these 2 years, 23 deaths were linked with excimer laser or mechanical dilator sheath extractions. The majority of deaths and injuries involved ICD leads, and most were caused by lacerations of the right atrium, superior vena cava, or innominate vein. Overall, 62 patients underwent emergency surgical repair of myocardial perforations and venous lacerations and 35 (56%) survived. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that device-assisted lead extraction is a high-risk procedure and that serious complications including death may not be mitigated by emergency surgery. However, skilled standby cardiothoracic surgery is essential when performing pacemaker and ICD lead extractions. Although the incidence of these complications is unknown, the results of our study imply that device-assisted lead extractions should be performed by highly qualified physicians and their teams in specialized centres.

Failure of impedance monitoring to prevent adverse clinical events caused by fracture of a recalled high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead.

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator high-voltage lead is prone to fracture. The October 2007 safety advisory recommended lead impedance monitoring to aid in identifying lead fractures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this single-center study was to examine the effectiveness of impedance monitoring for detecting Sprint Fidelis lead failures before they caused adverse clinical events such as inappropriate shocks. METHODS: Impedance and sensing information were acquired during routine clinic and CareLink follow-up and at the time of lead failure using the Patient Alert, sensing integrity counter, nonsustained episode, and electrogram features in Medtronic pulse generators. RESULTS: Between September 2004 and February 2008, 17 of 514 Sprint Fidelis leads (3.3%) followed up at our center failed between 11 and 35 months after implantation (mean 23.0 +/- 8.0 months). Fifteen of these failures (88%) were caused by pace-sense conductor fractures, and 2 (12%) were caused by high-voltage conductor defects. Twelve of 15 patients (80%) with pace-sense conductor fractures received inappropriate shocks; of these, 4 had no significant increase in lead impedance before they were shocked, 2 were shocked <3 hours after their lead impedances exceeded the 1,000 Omega audible alert threshold, and 2 patients did not hear the alarm. All pace-sense conductor failures whose sensing function could be evaluated (13 of 15) had oversensing based on stored data, and oversensing usually (11 of 13) preceded impedances changes. CONCLUSION: Impedance monitoring did not prevent inappropriate shocks in two-thirds of our patients. Thus, pace-sense conductor impedance monitoring as currently implemented does not reliably forewarn patients of a lead malfunction. Consequently, patients who have Sprint Fidelis leads remain at risk for adverse clinical events associated with pace-sense conductor fracture.

Early failure of a small-diameter high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead.

BACKGROUND: We have observed a higher than expected rate of Sprint Fidelis model 6949 lead failures in our practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of small-diameter Sprint Fidelis high-voltage ICD leads. METHODS: The actuarial survival of Sprint Fidelis model 6949 leads implanted at our center was compared with that of the Sprint Quattro Secure model 6947. The United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturers and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was searched for Sprint Fidelis models. RESULTS: The survival of 583 Sprint Fidelis 6949 leads implanted at our center between September 2004 and February 2007 was significantly less than 285 Sprint Quattro Secure model 6947 leads implanted by us between November 2001 and February 2007 (P = .005). Six patients presented with Sprint Fidelis lead failure 4-23 months after implant. Five of the six patients experienced multiple inappropriate shocks associated with pace-sense conductor and coil fractures; the sixth patient had a fixation mechanism failure. The MAUDE search rendered reports for 679 Sprint Fidelis leads. The most frequent complaints or observations were inappropriate shocks (33%), high impedance (33%), and fracture (35%). Of 125 leads analyzed by the manufacturer, 62 involved fracture of the pace-sense conductor or coil and the high-voltage (defibrillation) conductor. CONCLUSIONS: The Sprint Fidelis high-voltage lead appears to be prone to early failure. Its use should be limited until the failure mechanism is identified and corrected. Patients should be evaluated quarterly, and automatic lead test features should be enabled. While more data are needed, routine prophylactic replacement of intact, normally functioning Sprint Fidelis leads does not appear justified.

Clinical experience with pacemaker pulse generators and transvenous leads: an 8-year prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Pacemakers have improved the lives of patients worldwide. Unfortunately, the medical community has had little independent information regarding the performance of these vital medical devices. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the reasons pacemaker pulse generators and transvenous leads were removed from service. We evaluated the causes and major adverse clinical events associated with device end-of-service life behavior and how they were detected and managed. METHODS: Pulse generator and lead data were entered prospectively using a web-based format. Normal battery depletion was signified by the elective replacement indicator appearing >3 years after implant. Lead failure was a device defect causing pacing, sensing, or fixation malfunction, high threshold, or abnormal impedance. Major adverse clinical events were death, angina, heart failure, syncope, and perioperative surgical complications. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2006, 2,652 pulse generator and 615 leads were removed from service. The average pulse generator was implanted for 7.3 +/- 3.1 years (range <1 day to 26 years). The majority of pulse generators (n = 2,317 [87%]) were replaced for normal battery depletion. Severe and accelerated battery depletion, manufacturers' advisories, and electronic or connector defects accounted for 13% of pulse generator removals. The proportion of pulse generators removed from service as a result of manufacturers' advisories, electronic failure, and housing defects were 4%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. Models with rate response capability had shorter battery longevities than those without rate response capability. Major adverse clinical events due to pulse generator end-of-service life behavior were related to electronic and connector defects, and both normal and severe battery depletion. Median time to lead failure was 7.2 +/- 5.2 years. Insulation defects caused the majority of lead failures, and most of these leads used polyurethane materials. Lead failure was associated with a 16% incidence of major adverse clinical events. No major adverse clinical events occurred when impending lead failure was detected at routine follow-up. Lead extraction was associated with a 5.6% complication rate, including one death. CONCLUSION: Overall pulse generator performance was satisfactory. Differences in battery longevity were observed among models. In some patients, elective replacement indicators signifying normal battery depletion resulted in major adverse clinical events. Pacemaker follow-up effectively identified pulse generator end-of-service life and often detected impending lead failure, thus avoiding major adverse clinical events. Long-term studies are needed to assess chronic lead performance so that appropriate clinical management strategies, including recommendations for lead extraction, can be developed.