Comparison of longevity and clinical outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers

Satoshi Kawada, Nobuhiro Nishii, Yoshimasa Morimoto, Akihito Miyoshi, Motomi Tachibana, Hiroyasu Sugiyama, Koji Nakagawa, Atsuyuki Watanabe, Hiroshi Morita, Hiroshi Ito

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background An early failure of the Biotronik Linox S/SD implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead has been reported. We have also experienced several cases with early failure of Linox leads. Objective Our aim was to assess the longevity of Linox S/SD (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) compared with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), Sprint Quattro (Medtronic), and Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) leads. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone implantation of Linox S/SD (n = 90), Sprint Fidelis (n = 37), Sprint Quattro (n = 27), or Endotak Reliance (n = 50) leads between June 2000 and December 2013 at our hospital. Variables associated with lead failure were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox survival modeling. Results Failure rates of Linox, Sprint Fidelis, and Endotak leads were 3.2%/year (7-year survival rate, 81.0%), 3.4%/year (7-year survival rate, 77.2%), and 0.61%/year (7-year survival rate, 95.8%), respectively. No lead failure was found with Sprint Quattro leads. The survival probability of Linox leads was significantly lower than that of Endotak leads (P =.049) and comparable to that of Sprint Fidelis leads (P =.69). In univariate analysis, age was the only predictor of Linox lead failure. Patients <58 years old were at significantly increased risk of lead failure compared with patients ≥58 years old (hazard ratio, 9.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–71.3; P =.037). Conclusion In our single-center experience, the survival rate of Linox leads was unacceptably low. The only predictor of Linox lead failure was age at implantation. This is the first description of a lower survival rate for Linox leads in an Asian population.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1496-1503
Number of pages8
JournalHeart Rhythm
Volume14
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Survival Rate
Survival
Berlin
Germany
Lead
Confidence Intervals
Population

Keywords

  • Endotak Reliance
  • Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
  • Linox
  • Longevity of ICD lead
  • Sprint Fidelis
  • Sprint Quattro

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Comparison of longevity and clinical outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers. / Kawada, Satoshi; Nishii, Nobuhiro; Morimoto, Yoshimasa; Miyoshi, Akihito; Tachibana, Motomi; Sugiyama, Hiroyasu; Nakagawa, Koji; Watanabe, Atsuyuki; Morita, Hiroshi; Ito, Hiroshi.

In: Heart Rhythm, Vol. 14, No. 10, 01.10.2017, p. 1496-1503.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a1512180fce04d77b109ea9db7f96162,
title = "Comparison of longevity and clinical outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers",
abstract = "Background An early failure of the Biotronik Linox S/SD implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead has been reported. We have also experienced several cases with early failure of Linox leads. Objective Our aim was to assess the longevity of Linox S/SD (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) compared with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), Sprint Quattro (Medtronic), and Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) leads. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone implantation of Linox S/SD (n = 90), Sprint Fidelis (n = 37), Sprint Quattro (n = 27), or Endotak Reliance (n = 50) leads between June 2000 and December 2013 at our hospital. Variables associated with lead failure were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox survival modeling. Results Failure rates of Linox, Sprint Fidelis, and Endotak leads were 3.2{\%}/year (7-year survival rate, 81.0{\%}), 3.4{\%}/year (7-year survival rate, 77.2{\%}), and 0.61{\%}/year (7-year survival rate, 95.8{\%}), respectively. No lead failure was found with Sprint Quattro leads. The survival probability of Linox leads was significantly lower than that of Endotak leads (P =.049) and comparable to that of Sprint Fidelis leads (P =.69). In univariate analysis, age was the only predictor of Linox lead failure. Patients <58 years old were at significantly increased risk of lead failure compared with patients ≥58 years old (hazard ratio, 9.0; 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.13–71.3; P =.037). Conclusion In our single-center experience, the survival rate of Linox leads was unacceptably low. The only predictor of Linox lead failure was age at implantation. This is the first description of a lower survival rate for Linox leads in an Asian population.",
keywords = "Endotak Reliance, Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, Linox, Longevity of ICD lead, Sprint Fidelis, Sprint Quattro",
author = "Satoshi Kawada and Nobuhiro Nishii and Yoshimasa Morimoto and Akihito Miyoshi and Motomi Tachibana and Hiroyasu Sugiyama and Koji Nakagawa and Atsuyuki Watanabe and Hiroshi Morita and Hiroshi Ito",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.020",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "1496--1503",
journal = "Heart Rhythm",
issn = "1547-5271",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of longevity and clinical outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers

AU - Kawada, Satoshi

AU - Nishii, Nobuhiro

AU - Morimoto, Yoshimasa

AU - Miyoshi, Akihito

AU - Tachibana, Motomi

AU - Sugiyama, Hiroyasu

AU - Nakagawa, Koji

AU - Watanabe, Atsuyuki

AU - Morita, Hiroshi

AU - Ito, Hiroshi

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Background An early failure of the Biotronik Linox S/SD implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead has been reported. We have also experienced several cases with early failure of Linox leads. Objective Our aim was to assess the longevity of Linox S/SD (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) compared with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), Sprint Quattro (Medtronic), and Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) leads. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone implantation of Linox S/SD (n = 90), Sprint Fidelis (n = 37), Sprint Quattro (n = 27), or Endotak Reliance (n = 50) leads between June 2000 and December 2013 at our hospital. Variables associated with lead failure were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox survival modeling. Results Failure rates of Linox, Sprint Fidelis, and Endotak leads were 3.2%/year (7-year survival rate, 81.0%), 3.4%/year (7-year survival rate, 77.2%), and 0.61%/year (7-year survival rate, 95.8%), respectively. No lead failure was found with Sprint Quattro leads. The survival probability of Linox leads was significantly lower than that of Endotak leads (P =.049) and comparable to that of Sprint Fidelis leads (P =.69). In univariate analysis, age was the only predictor of Linox lead failure. Patients <58 years old were at significantly increased risk of lead failure compared with patients ≥58 years old (hazard ratio, 9.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–71.3; P =.037). Conclusion In our single-center experience, the survival rate of Linox leads was unacceptably low. The only predictor of Linox lead failure was age at implantation. This is the first description of a lower survival rate for Linox leads in an Asian population.

AB - Background An early failure of the Biotronik Linox S/SD implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead has been reported. We have also experienced several cases with early failure of Linox leads. Objective Our aim was to assess the longevity of Linox S/SD (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) compared with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), Sprint Quattro (Medtronic), and Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) leads. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone implantation of Linox S/SD (n = 90), Sprint Fidelis (n = 37), Sprint Quattro (n = 27), or Endotak Reliance (n = 50) leads between June 2000 and December 2013 at our hospital. Variables associated with lead failure were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox survival modeling. Results Failure rates of Linox, Sprint Fidelis, and Endotak leads were 3.2%/year (7-year survival rate, 81.0%), 3.4%/year (7-year survival rate, 77.2%), and 0.61%/year (7-year survival rate, 95.8%), respectively. No lead failure was found with Sprint Quattro leads. The survival probability of Linox leads was significantly lower than that of Endotak leads (P =.049) and comparable to that of Sprint Fidelis leads (P =.69). In univariate analysis, age was the only predictor of Linox lead failure. Patients <58 years old were at significantly increased risk of lead failure compared with patients ≥58 years old (hazard ratio, 9.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–71.3; P =.037). Conclusion In our single-center experience, the survival rate of Linox leads was unacceptably low. The only predictor of Linox lead failure was age at implantation. This is the first description of a lower survival rate for Linox leads in an Asian population.

KW - Endotak Reliance

KW - Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

KW - Linox

KW - Longevity of ICD lead

KW - Sprint Fidelis

KW - Sprint Quattro

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030544574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030544574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.020

DO - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 28502870

AN - SCOPUS:85030544574

VL - 14

SP - 1496

EP - 1503

JO - Heart Rhythm

JF - Heart Rhythm

SN - 1547-5271

IS - 10

ER -