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

Abstract

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.