Mechanisms of Lead Failure by Recall Status and Manufacturer: Results From the Pacemaker and Implantable Defibrillator Leads Survival Study ("PAIDLESS").

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the differences in lead failure mechanisms across the major United States implantable defibrillator lead manufacturers (Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude Medical), between all non-recalled and recalled leads, and between two recalled lead families (Medtronic Sprint Fidelis and the St. Jude Medical Riata and Riata ST). METHODS: This was a single-center, non-randomized, retrospective study analyzing 3802 patients with 4078 leads who underwent implantable defibrillator lead implantation between February 1, 1996 and December 31, 2011. Lead failure mechanisms were defined as lead fracture, insulation defect, and other. RESULTS: A total of 153 leads (3.8%) failed during the trial period. Failed Medtronic and St. Jude Medical leads presented predominantly as lead fractures (75.8% and 52.8%, respectively). Failed Boston Scientific leads displayed greater variability, although many also failed by fracture (44.4%). The majority of failed non-recalled and recalled leads presented as fractures (50.7% and 82.9%, respectively). The recalled Medtronic Sprint Fidelis and St. Jude Medical Riata/Riata ST leads primarily presented as fractures (89.3% and 65.0%, respectively). Patients whose lead failed via an insulation defect or other mechanism appeared to have a faster time to mortality following lead failure than patients whose lead failed via fracture (P<.01 and P=.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lead fracture is the most common form of lead failure regardless of the failure points previously identified in these leads. Patients who experienced a lead failure as a result of an insulation defect or other mechanism appeared to die faster than patients whose lead failed via fracture.

The Amigo™ Remote Catheter System: From Concept to Bedside.

Radiation exposure is a serious concern during fluoroscopic procedures, including electrophysiology (EP) studies and radiofrequency catheter ablation of arrhythmias. Operators typically don lead aprons to protect themselves from radiation, but wearing lead can result in greater fatigue and orthopedic injury during long procedures. To address this problem, two robotic catheter systems (RCS) have previously been introduced on the market, the Niobe® (Stereotaxis Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) and Sensei® X (Hansen Medical, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) systems. However, the widespread adoption of these systems has been limited by both cost and ease of use. In contrast, the Amigo™ RCS (Catheter Precision, Inc., Mount Olive, NJ, USA) was developed to provide a simple, lower profile, and less expensive remote catheter manipulation solution. Approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this technology allows for operators to remotely manipulate electrophysiology (EP) catheters from outside the fluoroscopy field. Notably, the Amigo™ RCS (Catheter Precision, Inc., Mount Olive, NJ, USA) first underwent an early study in dogs in 2008 to demonstrate its safety and efficacy in an animal model. After a clinical trial evaluating its safety and mapping capabilities in humans was completed in 2010, the Amigo™ RCS (Catheter Precision, Inc., Mount Olive, NJ, USA) underwent several scientific studies to examine its ability to assist in the mapping and ablation of various arrhythmias in comparison with the conventional manual approach. The Amigo™ RCS (Catheter Precision, Inc., Mount Olive, NJ, USA) achieved mapping and ablation success rates that were similar to those achieved with manual catheter manipulation, and no complications due to its use were observed. It was approved by the FDA for use in diagnostic EP studies of the right atrium and ventricle in 2012, with this indication later expanded in 2014 to include radiofrequency ablations. The device is currently compatible with the Blazer™ (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) and EZ STEER™ (Biosense Webster, Inc., Diamond Bar, CA, USA) catheter handles. Here, we present a clinical report in which the Amigo™ RCS (Catheter Precision, Inc., Mount Olive, NJ, USA) was employed to map and ablate symptomatic supraventricular tachycardia. Dr. Cohen's clinical experience with this robotic system is also reviewed.

Differences in Approaches and Outcomes of Defibrillator Lead Implants Between High-Volume and Low-Volume Operators: Results From the Pacemaker and Implantable Defibrillator Leads Survival Study ("PAIDLESS").

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between operator volume and implantable defibrillator lead failure and patient mortality at a single large implanting center. METHODS: This study analyzed the differences between high-volume and low-volume defibrillator implanters in the Pacemaker and Implantable Defibrillator Lead Survival Study ("PAIDLESS") between February 1, 1996 and December 31, 2011 at NYU Winthrop Hospital. "High-volume" was defined as performing ≥500 implants over the study period, while "low-volume" was defined as performing <500 implants. Comparisons between the procedure volume groups were performed using Fisher's Exact test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Kaplan-Meier analysis as appropriate. RESULTS: Eight operators participated in the study, four of whom were high-volume operators. Of 3801 patients, a total of 3149 (83%) were operated upon by high-volume operators. Low-volume operators implanted fewer recalled leads (12% vs 42%; P<.001) and more often obtained venous access through the cephalic vein cutdown approach (63% vs 38%; P<.001) than high-volume operators. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed shorter time to lead failure in the low-volume group (P=.02). Time to mortality was not significantly different between the high-volume and low-volume groups (P=.18). When adjusted for lead recall status, patients of high-volume operators were 43% less likely to experience lead failure compared to patients of low-volume operators. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume defibrillator implanters selected a higher percentage of recalled leads, but their patients were less likely to encounter lead failure when adjusted for lead recall status compared to low-volume operators.