No abstract

No abstract

AimThe purpose of this study was to determine if Optim™, a unique copolymer of silicone and polyurethane, protects Riata ST Optim and Durata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads (SJM, St Jude Medical Inc., Sylmar, CA, USA) from abrasions that cause lead failure.Methods and resultsWe searched the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Manufacturers and User Device Experience (MAUDE) database on 13 April 2012 using the simple search terms ‘Riata ST Optim™ abrasion analysis’ and ‘Durata abrasion analysis’. Lead implant time was estimated by subtracting 3 months from the reported lead age. The MAUDE search returned 15 reports for Riata ST Optim™ and 37 reports for Durata leads, which were submitted by SJM based on its analyses of returned leads for clinical events that occurred between December 2007 and January 2012. Riata ST Optim™ leads had been implanted 29.1 ± 11.7 months. Eight of 15 leads had can abrasions and three abrasions were caused by friction with another device, most likely another lead. Four of these abrasions resulted in high-voltage failures and one death. One failure was caused by an internal insulation defect. Durata leads had been implanted 22.2 ± 10.6 months. Twelve Durata leads had can abrasions, and six leads had abrasions caused by friction with another device. Of these 18 can and other device abrasions, 13 (72%) had electrical abnormalities. Low impedances identified three internal insulation abrasions.ConclusionsRiata ST Optim™ and Durata ICD leads have failed due to insulation abrasions. Optim™ did not prevent these abrasions, which developed ≤4 years after implant. Studies are needed to determine the incidence of these failures and their clinical implications.

No abstract

BackgroundAs implantable cardioverter-defibrillator technology evolves, clinicians and patients need reliable performance data on current transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems. In addition, real-world reliability data could inform postmarket surveillance strategies directed by regulators and manufacturers.Methods and ResultsWe evaluated Medtronic Sprint Quattro, Boston Scientific Endotak, and St Jude Medical Durata and Riata ST Optim leads implanted by participating center physicians between January 1, 2006 and September 1, 2012. Our analytic sample of 2653 patients (median age 65, male 73%) included 445 St Jude, 1819 Medtronic, and 389 Boston Scientific leads. After a median of 3.2 years, lead failure was 0.28% per year (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.43), with no statistically significant difference among manufacturers. Simulations based on these results suggest that detecting performance differences among generally safe leads would require nearly 10 000 patients or very long follow-up.ConclusionsCurrently marketed implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads rarely fail, which may be reassuring to clinicians advising patients about risks and benefits of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems. Regulators should consider the sample size implications when designing comparative effectiveness studies and evaluating new technology for preventing sudden cardiac death.