Europace Advance Access originally published online on November 11, 2008
Europace 2009 11(1):31-34; doi:10.1093/europace/eun301
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators
Performance and survival of transvenous defibrillation leads: need for a European data registry
1 Division of Cardiology, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany; 2 Cardiovasular Department, Ospedali Riunti di Bergamo, Italy; 3 Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; 4 Cardiovascular Center, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; 5 Cardiac Pacing and Rhythmology Department, Le Chesnay, France; 6 Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Research Unit, Hospital General Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; 7 Wessex Cardiothoracic Centre, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK
Manuscript submitted 26 September 2008. Accepted after revision 8 October 2008.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +44 0 23 80 796240. E-mail address: jmm{at}hrclinic.org
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Although the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has increased over the last decades, the reporting of ICD lead performance is inadequate. So far, there is neither a European nor worldwide registry on ICD leads. The published long-term results from national or multicentre registries encompass relatively small patient cohorts. Nevertheless, the failure of ICD leads may have substantial clinical consequences, including failure to sense, failure to pace, failure to defibrillate, inappropriate shocks, and even death of the patient. The reported ICD lead survival varies significantly between studies: 91–99% at 2 years, 85–95% at 5 years, and 60–72% at 8 years. Thus, the true incidence of lead malfunction cannot be defined as outlined in the present review. One current initiative of the European Heart Rhythm Association is to initiate and develop a Europe-wide registry to monitor, over a prolonged follow-up period, the performance of ICDs and ICD leads.
Key Words: Defibrillator, Lead, Failure, Inappropriate shocks, Registry
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
The use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) has become the standard of care for patients at risk or who have suffered from life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia.1
–4 In recent years, greatest uptake of ICD therapy has been in the SCD at risk patients—primary prevention—and thus an ICD recipient population has developed among whom multiple device replacement will be indicated over a long time horizon.5–7 The attention of the clinical community has tended to focus on ICD generator reliability and longevity rather than defibrillation/pace–sense lead reliability. The latter can also be responsible for delivery of inappropriate shock therapies or even patient death, and now there is growing concern about long-term reliability of chronically implanted leads.8–11 There have been several recent reports of catastrophic lead malfunction, in excess of manufacturing norms and expectations, which have resulted in manufacturers either withdrawing or increasing scrutiny for their products.12–20 Attempts to gauge lead ‘real-life’ performance in European clinical practice have highlighted the lack of systematically registered lead performance data for all manufacturers, despite the large number of ICD leads implanted annually in Europe. |
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Modern ICD leads consist of electrodes, conductors, insulation, a distal fixation mechanism, and a connector.21
–23 Implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads have a multi-lumen design that incorporates straight wires and coiled conductors into an electrode body (Table 1). The current lead design has a bulky (ICD) connector part, comprising a separate pace–sense connector and one or two separate shock coil connectors (depending on single or dual coil lead design). To decrease the complexity and bulkiness of this arrangement, industry has collaborated on the development of the IS-4 connector that is quadripolar in construction, accommodating pace–sense and shocking coil connectors in a single structure. There may be some reluctance on industry’s part to introduce this design to the market as long-term reliability remains unclear.
|
Conductors and insulation are sheathed with insulation layers. Silicone and polyurethane are most frequently used insulation materials. In contrast to multi-lumen lead body design, coaxial leads have three concentric conductors of progressively smaller diameter, separated by insulating material (single lumen polyurethane and silicone tubing). The outer conductor is connected to the defibrillation coil, the middle conductor to the sensing ring, and the inner conductor to the pacing tip. Nevertheless, no two ICD lead models of different manufactures are alike.
Multiple factors influence ICD performance in the longer term include biophysical stress and changes at the electrode–tissue interface. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads must withstand hundreds of millions of cardiac cycles. As well as this mechanical distress, the electrode body is also affected by biological processes (ion oxidation) occurring at the endocardial surface and in the blood stream. Pathological examinations have revealed that the electrode–myocardial interfaces of ICD leads are characterized by intense endocardial fibrosis.24 Furthermore, the leads are encased by sheaths of fibroelastic tissue. Fibrotic tissue is also found adjacent to the lead in the current path of ICD shocks. Thus, these tissue responses influence lead performance and lead survival in long term.
In the past decade, dual and multisite pacing in combination with defibrillation capabilities have been introduced.25,26 This has increased the need for ICD leads with small diameters, because small ICD leads might facilitate multiple lead implantation procedures.23,27–29 However, latest performance data on ICD leads with diameters smaller than 7 Fr indicate increased risk of long-term failure, suggesting that the trade-off between diameter and durability is not completely predictable. Medtronic (Minneapolis, MN, USA) released a family of small-diameter leads, named Sprint Fidelis, in 2004 with a 6.6 Fr lead body—a 23% reduction in lead diameter compared with older 8 Fr leads. The Sprint Fidelis lead (Model 6949 and 6948) has a silicone multi-lumen design and is a true bipolar lead where sensing is between the lead tip and the ring electrode. Medtronic Inc. voluntarily decided in October 2007 to withdraw the Sprint Fidelis lead from the market as a consequence of lead performance below the company standard.16 In particular, two ‘hot spots’ for lead failure were identified: under the suture sleeve when used for tightening the lead to the muscle and in proximity of the lead anode. Similarly, other leads have mechanical properties that have also been implicated in patient complications.18,30,31 Thus changed mechanical properties, representing technological response to physician demands, may have compromised long-term lead survival, but we have a paucity of data for these leads to confirm or refute clinical suspicions of compromised lead performance.
|
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Failure of ICD leads may have substantial clinical consequences, including failure to sense, failure to pace, failure to defibrillate, inappropriate shocks, and even death of the patient.32
–34 In contrast to ICD generators, which can easily be explanted in the case of malfunction, ICD leads cannot be easily removed due to fibroelastic scarring at the lead tip and around the lead body.24 Reported ICD lead survival varies significantly between studies: 91–99% at 2 years, 85–95% at 5 years, and 60–72% at 8 years.19,20 One reason for this variability in lead performance is that definition of lead malfunction is open to interpretation. Indeed, it requires careful technical examination of returned product to define whether an ICD lead complication relates to a manufacturing/design fault, physician/implanter use of the device, ICD programming parameters, disease process, or external/unrelated factors and sometimes a definitive conclusion may not be reached. Thus, the clinical indication for lead replacement varies from institution to institution. Most commonly ICD lead malfunction is defined as abnormality of the electrical lead properties including over-sensing or a visible lead fracture on chest X rays (Table 2).35,36
|
Insulation defects are the most common abnormalities in ICD leads.10
Polyurethane leads especially can degenerate due to metal ion oxidation causing insulation defects and lead failure.21,32,37,38 Polyurethane polymers and the production of complex coaxial leads seem to be the combination with the highest incidence of lead malfunction. Of note, 
66% of ICD lead malfunctions are recognized at routine follow-up.11,12 Lead malfunction causes inappropriate ICD shocks in 75% of cases. Interestingly, fracture within the pace–sense circuit of Sprint Fidelis leads can induce inappropriate shocks triggered by electromagnetic interference by the device programmer during interrogation of the device.10 Of note, patients who had a lead revision due to ICD lead failure appear to have an eight-fold increased risk for another lead failure.19 This underscores the presence of individual patient factors, which influence lead survival. Cox regression analysis in a total of 990 consecutive patients further showed that younger age and female gender are associated with a higher failure rate, whereas single-chamber ICD and ICD implantation before 1998 have a better lead survival.20 This finding might be explained by increased mechanical stress on the leads in younger active patients, restricted anatomic space in female patients, and by the presence of multiple, especially small diameter, leads.
In recent years, several studies have tried to define algorithms to predict lead failure.21,29,39 Daily lead-impedance measurements, which might be incorporated in a remote disease management program, promise accurate detection of lead failures.39 In addition, the quantification of very short RR intervals (<140 ms) may also allow the detection of electrical noise over-sensing.29 In the event of lead malfunction, the lead extraction is often required. This procedure carries with it significant risk of mortality or morbidity and is an important undertaking which likely reduces the clinical and cost efficacy of ICD therapy as a whole. It does not offer a simple solution to lead failure.40
|
Reporting of implantable cardioverter defibrillator and lead failure in Europe |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Although the use of ICD therapy has increased over the last decades, the reporting of ICD lead performance is inadequate. So far, there is neither a European nor worldwide registry on ICD leads. The published long-term results from national or multicentre registries encompass a maximum of 1317 patients.11
,19 Thus, the true incidence of lead malfunction cannot be defined at present. Due to under-reporting of lead problems, it appears to be possible that lead reliability is substantially overestimated. Manufacturers have argued that ‘in-house’ surveillance (facilitated by remote management technologies) or specific local registries offer adequate data. However, these mechanisms are not independent of industry and selective in nature. They leave open the possibility that device failure goes unrecognized when early corrective or patient surveillance actions could reduce ICD therapy-related morbidity or mortality. Thus, a large international registry will help determine more precisely the lead performance in the long term. In addition, the impact of various additional factors such as operator experience, size of implanting hospitals, different pacing sites, cost-effectiveness, etc. could be analysed. Of note, the Heart Rhythm society announced in March 2008 the formation of a Task Force on Lead Performance Policies and Guidelines. This Task Force is designated to make recommendation to the US Food and Drug Administration, manufactures, physicians, and patients on lead performance and malfunction. |
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
In our capacity as the Scientific Initiatives Committee of the European Heart Rhythm Association, European Society of Cardiology, we recommend that a partnership of industry, physicians, and regulatory bodies in Europe and European Union Commission representatives urgently collaborate to develop a Europe-wide registry to monitor, over a prolonged follow-up period, the performance of ICDs and ICD leads. Importantly, the registry must be embedded into other initiatives regarding monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices41
. Without this we risk compromising trust in the value of ICD therapy resulting in lessened uptake of ICD therapy in patients with the potential to benefit, and the possibility of exposing patients to device-related complications through ignorance of device failures. |
Funding |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
This work was supported by the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Society of Cardiology.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
The European Heart Rhythm Association Board has reviewed and agreed the publication of this manuscript. The authors thank all the Board members for their input and particularly Professor Brugada, Professor Vardas, and Professor Priori.
Conflict of interest: A.G. has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific. J.M.M. receives consultancy fees from Medtronic and Sorin and unrestricted grants for the support of research staff.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionImplantable cardioverter...Implantable cardioverter...Reporting of implantable...ConclusionsFundingAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
[1] Mirowski M, Reid PR, Mower MM, Watkins L, Gott VL, Schauble JF, et al. Termination of malignant ventricular arrhythmias with an implanted automatic defibrillator in human beings. N Engl J Med (1980) 303:322–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
[2] Sanders GD, Hlatky MA, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. N Engl J Med (2005) 353:1471–80.
[3] Ding L, Hua W, Niu H, Chen K, Zhang S. Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death using implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace (2008) 10:1034–41.
[4] Mark DB, Nelson CL, Anstrom KJ, Al-Khatib SM, Tsiatis AA, Cowper PA, et al, for the SCD-HeFT Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in chronic stable heart failure: results from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Circulation (2006) 114:135–42.
[5] Goldenberg I, Vyas AK, Hall WJ, Moss AJ, Wang H, He H, et al, MADIT-II Investigators. Risk stratification for primary implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol (2008) 51:288–96.
[6] Klein H, Auricchio A, Reek S, Geller C. New primary prevention trials of sudden cardiac death in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: SCD-HEFT and MADIT-II. Am J Cardiol (1999) 83:91D–7D.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[7] Goldberger Z, Lampert R. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: expanding indications and technologies. JAMA (2006) 295:809–18.
[8] Maisel WH. Pacemaker and ICD generator reliability. Meta-analysis of device registries. JAMA (2006) 295:1929–34.
[9] Maisel WH, Moynahan M, Zuckerman BD, Gross TP, Tovar OH, Tillman DB, et al. Pacemaker and ICD generator malfunction. Analysis of food and drug administration annual reports. JAMA (2006) 295:1901–6.
[10] Farwell D, Redpath C, Birnie D, Gollob M, Lemery R, Posan E, et al. Inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks in fractured Sprint Fidelis leads associated with appropriate interrogation. Europace (2008) 10:726–8.
[11] Maisel WH, Kramer DB. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead performance. Circulation (2008) 117:2721–3.
[12] Dorwarth U, Frey B, Dugas M, Matis T, Fiek M, Schmoeckel M, et al. Transvenous defibrillation leads: high incidence of failure during long-term follow-up. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2003) 14:38–43.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[13] Maloney JD, Hayes DL, Timmis GC. Report of the policy conference of NASPE on device/lead performance and the development of a postmarket surveillance database. The writing committee. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1993) 16:1945–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
[14] Maisel WH. Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: the weakest link. Circulation (2007) 115:2461–3.
[15] Kenigsberg DN, Mirchandani S, Dover AN, Kowalski M, Wood MA, Shepard RK, et al. Sensing failure associated with the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2008) 19:270–4.
[16] Urgent medical device information: Sprint Fidelis lead patient management recommendations. (2007) Minneapolis: Medtronic. http://www.medtronic.com/fidelis/physician-letter.html (14 February 2008, date last accessed).
[17] Maisel WH. Semper fidelis–consumer protection for patients with implanted medical devices. N Engl J Med (2008) 358:985–7.
[18] Danik SB, Mansour M, Singh J, Reddy VY, Ellinor PT, Milan D, et al. Increased incidence of subacute lead perforation noted with one implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Heart Rhythm (2007) 4:439–42.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[19] Eckstein J, Koller MT, Zabel M, Kalusche D, Schaer BA, Osswald S, et al. Necessity for surgical revision of defibrillator leads implanted long-term. Causes and management. Circulation (2008) 117:2727–33.
[20] Kleemann T, Becker T, Doenges K, Vater M, Senges J, Schneider S, et al. Annual rate of transvenous defibrillation lead defects in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators over a period of >10 years. Circulation (2007) 115:2474–80.
[21] Ellenbogen KA, Wood MA, Shepard RK, Clemo HF, Vaughn T, Holloman K, et al. Detection and management of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure. J Am Coll Cardiol (2003) 41:73–80.
[22] Luria D, Glikson M, Brady PA, Lexvold NY, Rasmussen MJ, Hodge DO, et al. Predictors and mode of detection of transvenous lead malfunction in implantable defibrillators. Am J Cardiol (2001) 87:901–4.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[23] Küpper B, Yee R, O’Hara G, Simpson CS, Della Bella P, Workel M, et al. Do small (6.6Fr) active and passive fixation defibrillator leads perform as well as larger sized leads? A multi-centre analysis. Europace (2008) 9:657–61.
[24] Epstein AE, Kay N, Plumb VJ, Dailey SM, Anderson PG. Gross and microscopic pathological changes associated with nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator leads. Circulation (1998) 98:1517–24.
[25] Auricchio A, Prinzen FW. Cardiac resynchronization therapy: the more pacing sites, the better the outcome? J Am Coll Cardiol (2008) 51:1463–5.
[26] Jones GK, Bardy GH, Kudenchuk PJ. Mechanical complications after implantation of multiple-lead nonthoracotomy defibrillator systems: implications for management and future system design. Am Heart J (1995) 130:327–33.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[27] Gallik DM, Ben Zur UM, Gross JN, Furman S. Lead fracture in cephalic versus subclavian approach with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1996) 19:1089–94.[CrossRef][Medline]
[28] Roelke M, O’Nunain SS, Osswald S, Garan H, Harthorne JW, Ruskin JN. Subclavian crush syndrome complicating transvenous cardioverter defibrillator systems. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1995) 18:973–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
[29] Gunderson BD, Patel AS, Bounds CA, Shepard RK, Wood MA, Ellenbogen KA. An algorithm to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure. J Am Coll Cardiol (2004) 44:1898–902.
[30] Metha D, Nayak HE, Singson M, Chao S, Pe E, Camunas JL, et al. Late complications in patients with pectoral defibrillator implants with transvenous defibrillator lead systems: high incidence of insulation breakdown. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1998) 21:1893–900.[CrossRef][Medline]
[31] Renzulli A, Vitale N, D’Onofrio A, Cotrufo M. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunction due to transvenous lead insulation break. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1994) 17:245–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
[32] Kitamura S, Satomi K, Kurita T, Shimizu W, Suyama K, Aihara N, et al. Long-term follow-up of transvenous defibrillation leads: high incidence of fracture in coaxial polyurethane lead. Circ J (2006) 70:273–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[33] Epstein AE, Plumb VJ, Kirk KA, Kay GN. Pacing threshold increase in nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator leads: implications for battery longevity and margin of safety. J Interv Card Electrophysiol (1997) 1:131–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
[34] Schwartzman D, Callans DJ, Gottlieb CD, Heo J, Marchlinski FE. Early postoperative rise in defibrillation threshold in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems: attenuation with biphasic shock waveforms. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (1996) 7:483–93.[Web of Science][Medline]
[35] Gupta A, Zegel HG, Dravid VS, Nierenberg SJ, Freiman DB. Value of radiography in diagnosing complications of cardioverter defibrillators implanted without thoracotomy in 437 patients. Am J Roentg (1997) 168:105–8.
[36] Drucker EA, Brooks R, Garan H, Sweeney MO, Ruskin JM, McGovern BA, et al. Malfunction of implantable cardioverter defibrillators placed by a non-thoracotomy approach: frequency of malfunction and value of chest radiography in determining cause. Am J Roentg (1995) 165:275–9.
[37] Antonelli D, Rosenfeld T, Freedberg NA, Palma E, Gross JN, Furman S. Insulation lead failure: is it a matter of insulation coating, venous approach, or both? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1998) 21:418–21.[CrossRef][Medline]
[38] Hayes DL, Graham KJ, Irwin M, Vidaillet H, Disler G, Sweesy M, et al. Multicenter experience with a bipolar tined polyurethane ventricular lead. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1995) 18:999–1004.[CrossRef][Medline]
[39] Vollmann D, Erdogan A, Himmrich E, Neuzner J, Becker D, Unterberg-Buchwald C, et al. Patients AlertTM to detect ICD lead failure: efficacy, limitations, and implications for future algorithms. Europace (2006) 8:371–6.
[40] Bracke FALE, Meijer A, vanGelder LM. Malfunction of endocardial defibrillator leads and lead extraction: where do they meet. Europace (2002) 4:19–24.
[41] Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, Cowie M, Ellenbogen KA, Gillis AM, et al, Heart Rhythm Society; European Heart Rhythm Association; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association; European Society of Cardiology; Heart Failure Association of ESC; Heart Failure Society of America. HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm (2008) 5:907–25.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in Europace:
- A changing scenario in the clinical use of implantable defibrillators: the need for long-term data on lead performance
- Giuseppe Boriani, Mauro Biffi, Alessandro Marziali, Igor Diemberger, and Cristian Martignani
Europace 2009 11: 1-3.[Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. A. Scott, A. Chungh, M. Zeb, A. M. Yue, P. R. Roberts, and J. M. Morgan Is the use of an additional pace/sense lead the optimal strategy for the avoidance of lead extraction in defibrillation lead failure? A single-centre experience Europace, December 24, 2009; (2009) eup406v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Scott, W. Chow, E. Ellis, J. M. Morgan, and P. R. Roberts Extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: a single-centre study of electrosurgical and laser extraction Europace, November 1, 2009; 11(11): 1501 - 1504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Korantzopoulos, K. P. Letsas, G. Grekas, and J. A. Goudevenos Pacemaker dependency after implantation of electrophysiological devices Europace, September 1, 2009; 11(9): 1151 - 1155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Boriani, M. Biffi, A. Marziali, I. Diemberger, and C. Martignani A changing scenario in the clinical use of implantable defibrillators: the need for long-term data on lead performance Europace, January 1, 2009; 11(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||