Key result
Linox ICD leads linked to high premature failure versus other leads, showing ~76% eight-year survival.
Why the study?
Do Linox ICD leads have higher failure rates compared to other ICD leads in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Cohort (n=287)
No
Do Linox ICD leads have higher failure rates compared to other ICD leads in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 12.6% vs 0.7%
Linox ICD leads demonstrate significantly higher premature failure rates compared to other contemporary leads, particularly in younger patients.
Warrants close monitoring of Linox leads; observational data leaves open need for prospective confirmation before practice change.
INTRODUCTION: ICD lead failure is a potential source of significant morbidity and mortality. This study investigates the survival rates of Sprint Quattro, Endotak Reliance, and Linox ICD leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort study of all patients with an ICD implanted between January 2007 and December 2012 from the Wellington Hospital region, New Zealand, a tertiary referral center. Lead and patient details were established by review of clinical notes and the PaceArt Optima database. We analyzed a total of 287 implants using Sprint Quattro (n = 92), Endotak Reliance (n = 37), Linox (n = 151), Riata (n = 4), and Sprint Fidelis (n = 2) leads. Median follow-up was 61.6 (26.0-81.6) months for Sprint Quattro leads, 66.7 (53.3-88.8) months for Linox leads, and 82.9 (45.9-107.4) months for Endotak Reliance leads. There were 20 cases of lead failure of which 19 were in Linox leads. The 4-, 6-, and 8-year survival for Linox leads was 97% (92.6-99.1), 93% (85.5-96.5), and 76% (62.3-85.5), respectively. The predominant abnormality was detection of nonphysiological electrical signals. Linox lead failure was associated with a younger age of patient (49.2 vs. 57.7 years, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The 7-year survival of Linox leads was significantly worse than shown in Biotronik surveillance reports, but in line with other single-center studies from around the world.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Connor et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in ICD implantation (n=287). Linox ICD leads vs. Sprint Quattro, Endotak Reliance, and other ICD leads was evaluated on lead failure. Linox ICD leads exhibited a high rate of premature failure, accounting for 19 of 20 total failures among 287 implants, with an 8-year lead survival of 76%.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: