Resnic Frederic S, Majithia Arjun, Dhruva Sanket S, Ssemaganda Henry, Robbins Susan, Marinac-Dabic Danica, Hewitt Kathleen, Ohno-Machado Lucila, Reynolds Matthew R, Matheny Michael E
Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA (F.S.R., A.M., H.S., S.R., M.R.R.).
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA (F.S.R., A.M., M.R.R.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Apr;13(4):e006105. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006105. Epub 2020 Apr 14.
Several defibrillator leads have been recalled due to early lead failure leading to significant patient harm. Confirming the safety of contemporary defibrillator leads is essential to optimizing treatment for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We therefore sought to assess the comparative long-term safety of the 4 most commonly implanted ICD leads within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry.
A propensity-matched survival analysis of the ICD Registry was performed evaluating 4 contemporary ICD leads in patients receiving an ICD system for the first time. All patients in the ICD Registry aged ≥18 years who underwent an implant of an ICD between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016 were included. Monitoring of safety began with ICD implant and continued up to 5 years. A meaningful difference in ICD failure rate was defined as twice (or more) the lead failure rate observed in the propensity-matched comparator patients. Among the 374 132 patients who received a new ICD implant, no safety alerts were triggered for the primary safety end point of lead failure for any of the high energy leads studied. Estimated rates of freedom from lead failure at 5 years ranged from 97.7% to 98.9% for the 4 high-energy leads of interest.
Though limited by incomplete long-term outcomes ascertainment, active surveillance of the ICD Registry suggests that there were no meaningful differences in the rate of ICD high-energy lead survival for the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads.
由于早期导线故障会对患者造成严重伤害,数种除颤器导线已被召回。确认当代除颤器导线的安全性对于优化植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)患者的治疗至关重要。因此,我们试图在国家心血管数据注册库ICD注册系统中评估4种最常用的ICD导线的长期安全性。
对ICD注册系统进行倾向匹配生存分析,评估首次接受ICD系统植入的患者使用的4种当代ICD导线。纳入ICD注册系统中2011年4月1日至2016年3月31日期间年龄≥18岁且接受ICD植入的所有患者。安全性监测从ICD植入开始,持续5年。ICD故障率的显著差异定义为倾向匹配对照患者中观察到的导线故障率的两倍(或更高)。在374132例接受新ICD植入的患者中,所研究的任何一种高能导线的主要安全终点——导线故障均未触发安全警报。所关注的4种高能导线在5年时的估计无导线故障生存率在97.7%至98.9%之间。
尽管受长期结局确定不完整的限制,但ICD注册系统的主动监测表明,4种最常用的高能ICD导线在ICD高能导线生存率方面没有显著差异。