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

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.