Robert G. Hauser

The purpose of this study was to determine if Optim™, a unique copolymer of silicone and polyurethane, protects Riata ST Optim and Durata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads (SJM, St Jude Medical Inc., Sylmar, CA, USA) from abrasions that cause lead failure. We searched the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Manufacturers and User Device Experience (MAUDE) database on 13 April 2012 using the simple search terms ‘Riata ST Optim™ abrasion analysis’ and ‘Durata abrasion analysis’. Lead implant time was estimated by subtracting 3 months from the reported lead age. The MAUDE search returned 15 reports for Riata ST Optim™ and 37 reports for Durata leads, which were submitted by SJM based on its analyses of returned leads for clinical events that occurred between December 2007 and January 2012. Riata ST Optim™ leads had been implanted 29.1 ± 11.7 months. Eight of 15 leads had can abrasions and three abrasions were caused by friction with another device, most likely another lead. Four of these abrasions resulted in high-voltage failures and one death. One failure was caused by an internal insulation defect. Durata leads had been implanted 22.2 ± 10.6 months. Twelve Durata leads had can abrasions, and six leads had abrasions caused by friction with another device. Of these 18 can and other device abrasions, 13 (72%) had electrical abnormalities. Low impedances identified three internal insulation abrasions. Riata ST Optim™ and Durata ICD leads have failed due to insulation abrasions. Optim™ did not prevent these abrasions, which developed ≤4 years after implant. Studies are needed to determine the incidence of these failures and their clinical implications.

Background—Postmarket medical device surveillance in the United States depends largely on voluntary reporting of adverse events. Consequently, early safety signals may be missed, exposing patients to potentially hazardous products. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using an automated safety surveillance tool to detect early signals that a marketed implantable cardiac device was underperforming. Methods and Results—For this purpose, we performed simulated prospective monthly full-cohort and propensity-matched comparative survival analyses on our 3-center database of Sprint Fidelis and Quattro Secure implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads, using a commercially available automated surveillance tool that was preset to trigger an alert if the log rank probability value was Conclusions—An active automated safety surveillance system could have identified this implantable cardiovascular device problem substantially sooner than was achieved through existing postmarket surveillance methods. Such a tool, when applied to clinical registries and remote monitoring databases, may limit the exposure of large populations to underperforming and potentially hazardous cardiovascular devices.

Background—: Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads are prone to fractures that have caused adverse events, primarily inappropriate shocks, and a few reported deaths. More than 100 000 patients have Fidelis leads. No independent multicenter long-term performance information exists for this lead, and single-center studies suggest that certain patients are at increased risk for Fidelis failure. Our aim was to assess the longevity of Fidelis leads and to evaluate clinical variables and adverse events associated with Fidelis failure. The results were compared with like data for Quattro Secure (Quattro) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads implanted at our centers. Methods and Results—: This 3-center study included adults ≥18 years of age who received Fidelis or Quattro leads for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. From November 2001 to January 2009,1023 Fidelis and 1668 Quattro leads were implanted and followed up. The failure rate for Fidelis leads was 2.81%/y compared with 0.43%/y for Quattro leads ( P P P =0.041). Conclusions—: Compared with Quattro leads, the survival of Fidelis leads continues to decline, and Fidelis failure is notably higher in younger patients, women, individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia or channelopathies. These findings have significant implications for the management of patients who have Fidelis leads, and they demonstrate the importance of weighing clinical variables in assessments of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead performance.

An estimated 10 000–15 000 pacemaker and implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) leads are extracted annually worldwide using specialized tools that disrupt encapsulating fibrous tissue. Additional information is needed regarding the safety of the devices that have been approved for lead extraction. The aim of this study was to determine whether complications due to device-assisted lead extraction might be more hazardous than published data suggest, and whether procedural safety precautions are effective. We searched the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturers and User Defined Experience (MAUDE) database from 1995 to 2008 using the search terms ‘lead extraction and death’ and ‘lead extraction and injury’. Additional product specific searches were performed for the terms ‘death’ and ‘injury’. Between 1995 and 2008, 57 deaths and 48 serious cardiovascular injuries associated with device-assisted lead extraction were reported to the FDA. Owing to underreporting, the FDA database does not contain all adverse events that occurred during this period. Of the 105 events, 27 deaths and 13 injuries occurred in 2007–2008. During these 2 years, 23 deaths were linked with excimer laser or mechanical dilator sheath extractions. The majority of deaths and injuries involved ICD leads, and most were caused by lacerations of the right atrium, superior vena cava, or innominate vein. Overall, 62 patients underwent emergency surgical repair of myocardial perforations and venous lacerations and 35 (56%) survived. These findings suggest that device-assisted lead extraction is a high-risk procedure and that serious complications including death may not be mitigated by emergency surgery. However, skilled standby cardiothoracic surgery is essential when performing pacemaker and ICD lead extractions. Although the incidence of these complications is unknown, the results of our study imply that device-assisted lead extractions should be performed by highly qualified physicians and their teams in specialized centres.