Delayed cardiac perforation of the Durata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead more than 1 year after implantation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sharma SK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5419938 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPerforation of a device lead through the myocardium is a recognized complication of cardiac device implantation. The associated morbidity and mortality are significant, even though it is a relatively rare complication. Therefore, it is vital for acute clinicians to be aware of the diagnosis and subsequent management of myocardial perforation.Case summaryWe present the case of a 48-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department 1 month following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with chest and shoulder pain. Initial assessment revealed bilateral pleural effusions and anaemia. Computerized tomography of her chest and abdomen demonstrated a pericardial effusion, but it was transthoracic echocardiography that confirmed the diagnosis of right ventricular perforation. Urgent system revision was undertaken.DiscussionThis case highlights the importance of clinical suspicion and the use of diagnostic echocardiography as an important diagnostic tool in symptomatic patient's post-cardiac device implantation.
| S-EPMC6764542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Methods17 physicians, experienced in transvenous lead removal, performed a lead extraction manoeuvre of an ICD lead on a torso phantom. They were advised to stop traction only when further traction would be considered as harmful to the patient or when--based on their experience--a change in the extraction strategy was indicated. Traction forces were recorded with a digital precision gauge.ResultsMedian traction forces on the endocardium were 10.9 N (range from 3.0 N to 24.7 N and interquartile range from 7.9 to 15.3). Forces applied to the proximal end were estimated to be 10% higher than those measured at the tip of the lead due to a friction loss.ConclusionA traction force of around 11 N is typically exerted during standard transvenous extraction of ICD leads. A traction threshold for a safe procedure derived from a pool of experienced extractionists may be helpful for the development of required adequate simulator trainings.
| S-EPMC4055293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral 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 resultsA 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.ConclusionsThough 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.
| S-EPMC7360169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: When an implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead becomes non-functional, a recommendation currently exists for either lead abandonment or removal. Lead abandonment and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation may represent an additional option for patients who do not require pacing. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of a strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation in the setting of lead malfunction. Methods: We analyzed all consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads and compared their outcomes with those of patients who underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a single-chamber transvenous ICD (T-ICD). Results: Forty-three patients underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads, while 62 patients underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a new T-ICD. The two groups were comparable. In the extraction group, no major complications occurred during extraction, while the procedure failed and an S-ICD was implanted in 4 patients. During a median follow-up of 21 months, 3 major complications or deaths occurred in the S-ICD group and 11 in the T-ICD group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.29-3.94; P = 0.912). Minor complications were 4 in the S-ICD group and 5 in the T-ICD group (HR 2.13; 95% CI 0.49-9.24; P = 0.238). Conclusions: In the event of ICD lead malfunction, extraction avoids the potential long-term risks of abandoned leads. Nonetheless the strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation was feasible and safe, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes, and may represent an option in selected clinical settings. Further studies are needed to fully understand the potential risks of lead abandonment. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02275637.
| S-EPMC8356671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are used to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis. The most recent recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in these patients are in the 2017 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death. These recommendations, based on observational studies or expert opinion, have not been assessed. We aimed to assess them. METHODS:We performed a large retrospective cohort study of patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis and known or suspected cardiac sarcoidosis that underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were followed for a composite end point of significant ventricular arrhythmia or sudden cardiac death. The discriminatory performance of the Guideline recommendations was tested using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analyses. The optimal cutoff for the extent of late gadolinium enhancement predictive of the composite end point was determined using the Youden index. RESULTS:In 290 patients, the class I and IIa recommendations identified all patients who experienced the composite end point during a median follow-up of 3.0 years. Patients meeting class I recommendations had a significantly higher incidence of the composite end point than those meeting class IIa recommendations. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35% with >5.7% late gadolinium enhancement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging was as sensitive as and significantly more specific than LVEF >35% with any late gadolinium enhancement. Patients meeting 2 class IIa recommendations, LVEF >35% with the need for a permanent pacemaker and LVEF >35% with late gadolinium enhancement >5.7%, had high annualized event rates. Excluding 2 class IIa recommendations, LVEF >35% with syncope and LVEF >35% with inducible ventricular arrhythmia, resulted in improved discrimination for the composite end point. CONCLUSIONS:We assessed the Guideline recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with known or suspected cardiac sarcoidosis and identified topics for future research.
| S-EPMC6709696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk for mortality and heart failure-related events in select patients. Little is known about the use of CRT in combination with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients who are eligible for this therapy in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo (1) identify patient, clinician, and hospital characteristics associated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) use and (2) determine the extent of hospital-level variation in the use of CRT-D among guideline-eligible patients undergoing ICD placement.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter retrospective cohort from 1428 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. Adult patients meeting class I or IIa guideline recommendations for CRT at the time of device implantation were included in this study.Main outcomes and measuresImplantation of an ICD with or without CRT.ResultsA total of 63 506 eligible patients (88.6%) received CRT-D at the time of device implantation. The mean (SD) ages of those in the ICD and CRT-D groups were 67.9 (12.2) years and 68.4 (11.5) years, respectively. In hierarchical multivariable models, black race was independently associated with lower use of CRT-D (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) as was nonprivate insurance (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95 for Medicare and OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82 for Medicaid). Clinician factors associated with greater CRT-D use included clinician implantation volume (OR, 1.01 per 10 additional devices implanted; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01) and electrophysiology training (OR, 3.13 as compared with surgery-boarded clinicians; 95% CI, 2.50-3.85). At the hospital level, the overall median risk-standardized rate of CRT-D use was 79.9% (range, 26.7%-100%; median OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.99-2.18).Conclusions and relevanceIn a national cohort of patients eligible for CRT-D at the time of device implantation, nearly 90% received a CRT-D device. However, use of CRT-D differed by race and implanting operator characteristics. After accounting for these factors, the use of CRT-D continued to vary widely by hospital. Addressing disparities and variation in CRT-D use among guideline-eligible patients may improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC5814986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) coated and medical adhesive back-filled (MABF) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) coils have been promoted to reduce the fibrous ingrowth into coils that can complicate lead extraction.The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that ePTFE or MABF coatings are associated with greater ease of extraction.Consecutive isolated ICD lead extraction cases were identified from a prospectively collected clinical database. Primary endpoints included total procedure and fluoroscopy times, radiation dose, and fibrosis sites. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses in total and propensity-matched groups, adjusting for lead age and other factors.Among 329 patients (80% male; age 63.7 +/- 5.4 years), 284 (86.3%) had standard coil ICD and 45 (13.7%) had treated coil ICD leads extracted, of which 17 (5.2%) were ePTFE coated and 28 (8.5%) were MABF ICD leads. The ePTFE and MABF leads were associated with lower procedure and fluoroscopy times, radiation dose, and fibrosis sites, even after adjustment for lead age, which was significantly shorter in the treated coil leads. To further adjust for the difference in lead age, a propensity-matched group was analyzed. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and brachiocephalic fibrosis remained significantly lower in the treated coil lead group.The ePTFE- and MABF-treated coils appear to provide some incremental benefit in ease of extraction over conventional, nontreated coil ICD leads. Although many current ICD leads do not have fibrosis ingrowth-limiting strategies, our study may rationalize the consideration of adding such technologies to future leads.
| S-EPMC2904834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the widespread use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in clinical practice, concerns exist regarding ICD lead durability. The performance of specific lead designs and factors determining this in large populations need clarification.Methods and resultsThe Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched for studies including ?2 of the most commonly implanted leads. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. Seventeen studies were selected, including a total of 49 871 patients-5538 implanted with Durata (St. Jude Medical Inc), 10 605 with Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific), 16 119 with Sprint Quattro (Medtronic Corp), 11 709 with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic Corp), and 5900 with Riata (St. Jude Medical Inc)-with follow-up of 136 509 lead-years. Although the Durata lead presented a numerically higher rate, no statistically significant differences in the mean incidence of lead failure (0.29%-0.45% per year) were observed in comparison of the 3 nonrecalled leads. A higher event rate was documented with the Riata (1.0% per-year increase) and Sprint Fidelis (>2.0% per-year increase) leads compared with nonrecalled leads. An indication of increased incidence of Durata lead failure versus Sprint Quattro and Endotak Reliance leads was observed in 1 of 3 included studies, allowing for comparison of purely electrical lead failure, but this requires further evaluation.ConclusionsEndotak Reliance (8F), Sprint Quattro (8F), and Durata (7F) leads displayed low annual incidence of failure; however, long-term follow-up data are still scarce. More data are needed to clarify the performance and safety of the Durata lead.
| S-EPMC4845221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria. Methods and Results Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. During a follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0-2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead-related (n=47) and pocket-related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications. Conclusions One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.
| S-EPMC8174382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are widely employed for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Despite technological improvements, patients often need to undergo generator replacement, which entails the risk of periprocedural complications. Our aim was to estimate the service life of ICDs over a 10-year interval and to assess the main causes of replacement on the basis of data from the National ICD Registry of the Italian Society of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC). Methods and Results The registry includes data from over 400 hospitals in Italy. We included all patients who underwent device replacement from calendar years 2007 to 2016. The median service life of the ICDs and its trend over the years was estimated across the 3 types of devices (single-chamber, dual-chamber, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator) and the indication to implantation. The causes of replacement were also analyzed. We included 29 158 records from 27 676 patients (80.9% men; mean age at device replacement 65.8±12.0 years). The median service life was 57.3 months (interquartile range 27.8 months). Over the years, service life showed an increasing trend. The majority of patients underwent elective replacement because of battery end of life, and over the years there was a significant reduction of replacement for recalls, erosion/infections, and cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrading. Conclusions Our data from a large single-nation population showed that the trend of ICD service life, independently from ICD type, indication, and settings, significantly improved over time. Moreover, there was a striking reduction of interventions for upgrading and infection/erosion. This favorable trend has important clinical, organizational, and financial implications.
| S-EPMC6761663 | biostudies-literature