Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol ; 38(12): 1434-8, 2015 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26285670

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: St. Jude Riata/Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA) were recalled by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 for an increased rate of failure. More than 227,000 leads were implanted and at least 79,000 patients still have active Riata leads. Studies have examined clinical predictors of lead failure in Riata leads, but none have addressed the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator exchange on lead failure. The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of ICD generator exchange on the rate of electrical failure in the Riata lead at 1 year. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted in patients who underwent implantation of a Riata/Riata ST lead at one center. Patients with a functioning Riata lead (with/without externalized conductor) at the time of ICD exchange were compared to controls with Riata leads implanted for a comparable amount of time who did not undergo generator replacement. RESULTS: Riata leads were implanted in 1,042 patients prior to the recall and 153 of these patients underwent generator exchange without lead replacement. Conductor externalization was noted in 21.5% of Riata leads in the ICD exchange cohort, which was not different from the control group (19.2%; P = 0.32). Two leads failed in the first year after generator replacement (1.5%) which did not significantly differ from the control group (2.0%; P = 0.57). At change-out, 54% received a commanded shock (18.6 ± 0.9 J) that did not result in any change in the high-voltage lead impedance (46.1 ± 1.1 ohms). CONCLUSIONS: Conductor externalization was seen frequently in our cohort of patients. ICD generator exchange did not accelerate the rate of Riata lead failure at 1 year. Although both the control and the change-out cohorts failed at a rate much greater than nonrecalled leads, generator exchange did not appear to add to the problem.


Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables/estadística & datos numéricos , Remoción de Dispositivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Electrodos Implantados/estadística & datos numéricos , Falla de Equipo/estadística & datos numéricos , Recall de Suministro Médico , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Georgia/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo
2.
Heart Rhythm ; 11(10): 1785-9, 2014 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24953380

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Lead malfunction is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We have shown that the failure of recalled high-voltage leads significantly increases after ICD generator replacement. However, generator replacement has not been recognized as a predictor of lead failure in general. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of ICD generator exchange on the rate of ICD lead alerts. METHODS: A time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze a database of remotely monitored ICDs. The model assessed the impact of generator exchange on the rate of lead alerts after ICD generator replacement. RESULTS: The analysis included 60,219 patients followed for 37 ± 19 months. The 5-year lead survival was 99.3% (95% confidence interval 99.2%-99.4%). Of 60,219 patients, 7458 patients (12.9%) underwent ICD generator exchange without lead replacement. After generator replacement, the rate of lead alerts was more than 5-fold higher than in controls with leads of the same age without generator replacement (hazard ratio 5.19; 95% confidence interval 3.45-7.84). A large number of lead alerted within 3 months of generator replacement. Lead alerts were more common in patients with single- vs dual-chamber ICDs and in younger patients. Sex was not associated with lead alerts. CONCLUSION: Routine generator replacement is associated with a 5-fold higher risk of lead alert compared to age-matched leads without generator replacement. This suggests the need for intense surveillance after generator replacement and the development of techniques to minimize the risk of lead damage during generator replacement.


Asunto(s)
Arritmias Cardíacas/terapia , Desfibriladores Implantables , Arritmias Cardíacas/mortalidad , Diseño de Equipo , Falla de Equipo , Análisis de Falla de Equipo , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de Supervivencia/tendencias , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA