Why the study?
Several defibrillator leads have been recalled due to early failure causing significant harm, making it essential to assess the comparative long-term safety of contemporary ICD leads.
Are there meaningful differences in the rate of lead failure among the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads in patients receiving a first-time ICD?
Are there meaningful differences in the rate of lead failure among the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads in patients receiving a first-time ICD?
Active surveillance of a large national registry confirms the long-term safety and comparable reliability of the 4 most commonly used contemporary high-energy ICD leads.
Similar 5-year lead survival across common ICD leads; supports surveillance but leaves open rarer or longer-term risks.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Resnic et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: