Journal article
Management of recalled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads at generator replacement: a decision analysis model for Fidelis leads.
- Burri H Electrophysiology Unit, University Hospital of Geneva, Rue Perret-Gentil 4, CH - 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland haran.burri@hcuge.ch.
- Combescure C Biostatistician, CRC and Division of Clinical-Epidemiology, Department of Health and Community Medicine, University of Geneva and University Hospital of Geneva CH - 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
- 2014-01-29
Published in:
- Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology. - 2014
Complications
Decision analysis
Defibrillator lead
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Lead dysfunction
Lead extraction
Arrhythmias, Cardiac
Decision Support Techniques
Decision Trees
Defibrillators, Implantable
Device Removal
Electric Countershock
Humans
Medical Device Recalls
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Quality of Life
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
English
AIMS
Fidelis defibrillator leads have been recalled in 2007 because of a high fracture rate, exposing patients to inappropriate shocks, and to re-interventions. There are currently no guidelines on the management of patients with functional Fidelis leads. The dilemma is of particular relevance when the patient undergoes a generator replacement, as this offers an opportunity to perform concomitant lead revision. Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcome with different strategies of Fidelis lead management at generator replacement.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A decision analysis model comparing generator replacement only with different additional lead revision strategies was constructed with yearly cycles for up to 10 years. Published data were used to calculate outcomes of mortality, inappropriate shocks due to lead fracture, and major complications related to lead revision. A quality-of-life analysis was also performed. There were no differences in total mortality between the different strategies. In case of a generator replacement only, the probability of Fidelis lead fracture requiring re-intervention cumulated to 36 and 49% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Likewise, the risk of inappropriate shock due to lead fracture was 11 and 15%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis showed that all-cause mortality rates did not affect the results. Lead revision was also preferable in the quality-of-life analysis.
CONCLUSION
In patients with a functional Fidelis lead at generator replacement, lead revision (with or without lead extraction) should be seriously considered to avoid re-intervention for subsequent lead fracture and to reduce inappropriate shocks.
Fidelis defibrillator leads have been recalled in 2007 because of a high fracture rate, exposing patients to inappropriate shocks, and to re-interventions. There are currently no guidelines on the management of patients with functional Fidelis leads. The dilemma is of particular relevance when the patient undergoes a generator replacement, as this offers an opportunity to perform concomitant lead revision. Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcome with different strategies of Fidelis lead management at generator replacement.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A decision analysis model comparing generator replacement only with different additional lead revision strategies was constructed with yearly cycles for up to 10 years. Published data were used to calculate outcomes of mortality, inappropriate shocks due to lead fracture, and major complications related to lead revision. A quality-of-life analysis was also performed. There were no differences in total mortality between the different strategies. In case of a generator replacement only, the probability of Fidelis lead fracture requiring re-intervention cumulated to 36 and 49% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Likewise, the risk of inappropriate shock due to lead fracture was 11 and 15%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis showed that all-cause mortality rates did not affect the results. Lead revision was also preferable in the quality-of-life analysis.
CONCLUSION
In patients with a functional Fidelis lead at generator replacement, lead revision (with or without lead extraction) should be seriously considered to avoid re-intervention for subsequent lead fracture and to reduce inappropriate shocks.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1093/europace/eut425
- PMID 24469434
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/38789
Statistics
Document views: 26
File downloads: