PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 25, 2015EP Europace48 citationsOpen Access

Longevity of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a comparison among manufacturers and over time

View Full Paper
SGSimon von GuntenUniversity Hospital of BaselBSBeat SchaerElectrophysiologySYSing‐Chien YapElectrophysiology

Key Result

Contemporary implantable cardioverter defibrillators showed improved 5-year longevity compared to older models (80.6% vs 63.9%, P<0.05), independent of manufacturer and pacing mode.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=3,436)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Do contemporary ICD models have improved longevity compared to older models across different manufacturers?

P
Population
3436 patients in whom 4881 ICDs (44.2% VVI-ICDs, 27.4% DDD-ICDs, 26.3% CRT-ICDs, 2.0% subcutaneous ICDs) were implanted at two teaching hospitals in Switzerland and the Netherlands.
I
Intervention
Contemporary ICDs (implanted after 2006)
C
Comparator
Elderly ICDs (implanted before 2006)
O
Outcome
ICD replacement due to normal battery depletion

Contemporary ICD models demonstrate significantly improved battery longevity compared to older models, though significant differences persist among manufacturers.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 80.6% vs 63.9%

p-value: p=< 0.05

Abstract

AIMS: Longevity of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is crucial for patients and healthcare systems as replacements impact on infection rates and cost-effectiveness. Aim was to determine longevity using very large databases of two teaching hospitals with a high number of replacements and a rather homogeneous distribution among manufacturers. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consists of all patients in whom an ICD was inserted in. All ICD manufacturers operating in Switzerland and the Netherlands and all implanted ICDs were included. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator replacements due to normal battery depletion were considered events, and other replacements were censored. Longevity was assessed depending on manufacturers, pacing mode, implant before/after 2006, and all parameters combined. We analysed data from 3436 patients in whom 4881 ICDs 44.2% VVI-ICDs, 27.4% DDD-ICDs, 26.3% cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-ICDs, 2.0% subcutaneous ICDs were implanted. The four major manufacturers had implant shares between 18.4 and 31.5%. Replacement due to battery depletion (27.4%) was performed for 1339 ICDs. Patient survival at 5 years was 80.1%. Longevity at 5 years improved in contemporary compared with elderly ICDs 63.9-80.6% across all ICDs, of 73.7-92.1% in VVIs, 58.2-76.1% in DDDs, and of 47.1-66.3% in CRT defibrillators, all P value < 0.05. Remarkable differences were seen among manufacturers, and those with better performance in elderly ICDs were not those with better performance in contemporary ones. CONCLUSION: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator longevity increased in contemporary models independent of manufacturer and pacing mode. Still, significant differences exist among manufacturers. These results might impact on device selection.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gunten et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (n=3,436). Contemporary ICDs (implanted after 2006) vs. Elderly ICDs (implanted before 2006) was evaluated on Longevity at 5 years (freedom from replacement due to battery depletion) (p=< 0.05). Contemporary implantable cardioverter defibrillators showed improved 5-year longevity compared to older models (80.6% vs 63.9%, P<0.05), independent of manufacturer and pacing mode.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0f9ddb4fb650da4ffe50b1https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv296
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper