Transvenous lead performance of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators and pacemakers. Issue 3 (18th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mori, Hitoshi; Kato, Ritsushi; Ikeda, Yoshifumi; Tsutsui, Kenta; Hoya, Hiroki; Tanaka, Sayaka; Iwanaga, Shiro; Nakano, Shintaro; Muramatsu, Toshihiro; Sumitomo, Naokata; Matsumoto, Kazuo
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 44:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 481
• Page End: 489
• Publication Date: 2021-01-18
• Subjects: failure rate -- implantable cardioverter defibrillator -- lead failure -- pacemaker -- predictors; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14154
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: After the reports of recalled leads, several technological improvements have been introduced and the durability of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads has improved. The incidence of lead failures is now less than in the previous studies. However, there are few reports that have shown the long‐term durability of ICD leads as compared to pacemaker (PM) leads. This study analyzed the medium to long‐term performance of transvenous ICD leads as compared to PM leads. Methods: We retrospectively studied 1227 cases from April 2007 to December 2017 who underwent an initial transvenous ICD or PM implantation. The number of lead failures and patient background characteristics were analyzed. Results: During a median 3–3.5 years follow up period, 1 (0.3%) ICD lead and 18 (2.4%) PM leads failed. The incidence of lead failures was significantly higher in the PM group than ICD group ( p = .019). Males were associated with a higher incidence of lead failures in the PM group. Conclusion: Since the era of recalled ICD leads, the durability of ICD leads has remarkably improved and the incidence of lead failures with non‐recalled ICD leads has been less than that for PM leads.