96-42: Comparison of lead failure rates between DF-1 and DF-4 ICD leads in clinical practice. (10th June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kleemann, Thomas; Nonnenmacher, Florian; Kouraki, Kleopatra; Strauss, Margit; Werner, Nicolaus; Zahn, Ralf
• Is Part Of: Europace. Volume 18(2016)Supplement 1
• Page Start: i71
• Page End: i71
• Publication Date: 2016-06-10
• Subjects: Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Catheter ablation -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/18.suppl_1.i71c
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1099-5129

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The DF-4 ICD lead is a newly developed ICD lead with a DF-4 connector, which contains only one plug providing four-poles instead of the traditional DF-1 lead which has bi- or trifurcated lead connectors. Aim of the study was to compare the lead failure rate between DF-4 and DF-1 ICD-leads in clinical practice. Methods and results: A total of 525 consecutive patients of the prospective single-centre ICD-registry Ludwigshafen who underwent an ICD-implantation between 2008 and 2012 for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death were analyzed. A total of 264 patients received a DF-4 lead and 261 a DF-1 ICD-lead. The baseline characteristics between both groups were similar (median age 67 years, 25% female, 73% EF < 30%, coronary artery disease 52%, primary prophylactic ICD 77%). The 1-year and 3-year lead failure rates were 3% and 9% in DF-4 leads respectively 4% and 10% in DF-1 leads (p = n.s.). Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier curves of event-free lead function: DF-1 versus DF-4 ICD leads: Conclusions: After a median follow-up time of 3 years the lead failure rates were not different between DF-4 and DF-1 ICD leads.