Comparative study of the failure rates among 3 implantable defibrillator leads

Malderen, Sophie C H Van; Szili-Török, Tamás; Yap, Sing-Chien; Hoeks, Sanne E.; Zijlstra, Felix; Theuns, Dominic

doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.08.001

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, several single‐center and multicenter studies have reported 5‐year Linox lead survival rates ranging between 85.3% and 93.6%, which are similar to our results with the Linox Smart lead, which was 88% at 5 years.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Recently, isolated cases and single‐center and multicenter studies have reported that Biotronik Linox leads show high rates of electrical dysfunction and insulation failure of up to 12% at 5 years. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of lead failure in Linox Smart leads with that of two other leads: Endotak Reliance and Sprint Quattro Secure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, isolated cases and 3-5 single-center [6][7][8] and multicenter studies 9 have reported that Biotronik Linox leads show high rates of electrical dysfunction and insulation failure of up to 12% at 5 years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of early failure of Biotronik Linox Smart implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator leads: A comparative study of three defibrillator leads

Díez

Rubín

Calvo

et al. 2018

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of early failure of Biotronik Linox Smart implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator leads: A comparative study of three defibrillator leads

Díez

Rubín

Calvo

et al. 2018

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High pacing thresholds and high impedances were also detected but less frequently. Similar sorts of failures were observed in other studies . Of note, in contrast to some reports, conductor externalization was not seen in our cohort …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…In a prospective ICD registry, 5.9% of Linox, 1.5% Endotak, and 1.5% Durata leads failed during a follow up of 5.1 years. The majority of failures were attributed to noise (62.5%) and abnormal impedances (33.3%) . In another study, the reported Linox lead survival was 94.9% at 3 years and 88% at 5 years .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Performance of the Linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: A single‐center experience

Marai

Milman

Nof

et al. 2019

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background An early failure of Biotronik Linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads has been reported from several centers. Aim To compare the performance of Linox ICD leads with different other ICD leads as a report of the Sheba Medical Center experience. Methods All patients who had implantation of Linox ICD leads between 2007 and 2016 were included in this study. ICD lead failure was defined as low‐ or high‐voltage impedance; failure to capture, sense, or defibrillate; or the presence of nonphysiological signals not due to external interference. The survival probability of Linox leads was determined and compared to Medtronic Sprint Quattro ICD leads. Results A total of 340 patients (age 64.4 ± 1.8 years) were included in this analysis. They were followed up to 105 months (mean 45.7 ± 7, median 44 (Interquartile range (IQR) 26‐63) months). Twelve patients (3.5%) met the criteria for lead failure within 61.2 ± 22.9 months (median 66.5 [IQR 48–85 months]) post implantation. Noise with inappropriate ventricular arrhythmias detection, with or without therapy, was seen in 10 patients (83%). High pacing thresholds and high impedances were detected in two patients (17%). The survival probability of Linox leads at 60 months (97.3%) was similar to the survival probability of Sprint Quattro leads (98.2%) (P = .58). Nevertheless, the survival probability at 105 months was much lower (81% vs 97%, Linox ICD lead and Sprint Quattro lead, respectively, P = .0039). Conclusion Linox ICD leads have higher late failure rates compared to Sprint Quattro leads. These findings need to be confirmed in larger scale studies.

show abstract

An unusually late dislodged atrial lead catching externalized ICD‐lead conductor. A rare cause of simultaneous atrial and ICD lead over‐sensing

Kristensen

Kronborg

Nielsen

2019

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparative study of the failure rates among 3 implantable defibrillator leads

Cited by 19 publications

References 18 publications

Analysis of early failure of Biotronik Linox Smart implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator leads: A comparative study of three defibrillator leads

Analysis of early failure of Biotronik Linox Smart implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator leads: A comparative study of three defibrillator leads

Performance of the Linox implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: A single‐center experience

An unusually late dislodged atrial lead catching externalized ICD‐lead conductor. A rare cause of simultaneous atrial and ICD lead over‐sensing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About