Abstract:Cinefluoroscopy appears to be more sensitive than CXR for the detection of Riata cable extrusion. Interpretation of CXR by a radiologist with education in lead defects correlates highly with cinefluoroscopy with very high specificity. Depending on available resources for screening, CXR may be a reasonable alternative to cinefluoroscopy. Multidisciplinary collaboration across specialties (radiology and electrophysiology) can lead to improved diagnostic capability and thus the potential for enhanced quality of c… Show more
“…Prevalence of CE ranged from 11% to 43% ( Figure 2A). 6,[10][11][12][13][15][16][17][19][20][21][22]25 Based on random effects modeling, the overall rate of CE was 23.1% (95% CI 19.0%-27.6%). In most but not all of these 13 studies, an average lead dwell time was reported (range 3.5-6.2 years).…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28] Based on random effects modeling, the overall rate of EF was 6.3% (95% CI 4.7%-8.2%). Significant heterogeneity was again observed with I 2 = 89.507.…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7,10,11,15,17,19,21,22 This rate ranged from 0% to 9.2%. In a random effects analysis, the rate of EF in the absence of externalization was 2.7% (95% CI 1.4%-5.2%; Figure 3B).…”
Section: Prevalence Of Ef In the Absence Of Externalizationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…6,[10][11][12]15,17,[19][20][21][22]25 In the setting of known CE, the prevalence of EF ranged from 0% to 50.0%. In a random effects analysis, the rate of EF in the presence of CE was 17.3% (95% CI 11.2%-25.9%; Figure 3A).…”
Section: Prevalence Of Ef In the Presence Of Externalizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nine studies reported prevalence of CE by the number of high-voltage coils. 11,12,[15][16][17][19][20][21][22] In these studies, the number of implanted dual-coil Riata leads (n = 1235) outnumbered the single-coil leads (n = 651). In 4 cases, there were fewer than 3 subjects with single-coil leads.…”
Section: Prevalence Of Ef In the Absence Of Externalizationmentioning
“…Prevalence of CE ranged from 11% to 43% ( Figure 2A). 6,[10][11][12][13][15][16][17][19][20][21][22]25 Based on random effects modeling, the overall rate of CE was 23.1% (95% CI 19.0%-27.6%). In most but not all of these 13 studies, an average lead dwell time was reported (range 3.5-6.2 years).…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28] Based on random effects modeling, the overall rate of EF was 6.3% (95% CI 4.7%-8.2%). Significant heterogeneity was again observed with I 2 = 89.507.…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7,10,11,15,17,19,21,22 This rate ranged from 0% to 9.2%. In a random effects analysis, the rate of EF in the absence of externalization was 2.7% (95% CI 1.4%-5.2%; Figure 3B).…”
Section: Prevalence Of Ef In the Absence Of Externalizationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…6,[10][11][12]15,17,[19][20][21][22]25 In the setting of known CE, the prevalence of EF ranged from 0% to 50.0%. In a random effects analysis, the rate of EF in the presence of CE was 17.3% (95% CI 11.2%-25.9%; Figure 3A).…”
Section: Prevalence Of Ef In the Presence Of Externalizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nine studies reported prevalence of CE by the number of high-voltage coils. 11,12,[15][16][17][19][20][21][22] In these studies, the number of implanted dual-coil Riata leads (n = 1235) outnumbered the single-coil leads (n = 651). In 4 cases, there were fewer than 3 subjects with single-coil leads.…”
Section: Prevalence Of Ef In the Absence Of Externalizationmentioning
Riata leads show progressive and high externalization rates without correlation between externalization and electrical lead failure. Non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and impaired LVEF are independent predictors of structural lead failure in cross-sectional analysis, whereas 7 Fr lead is a predictor of electrical lead failure.
Overall there were minimal differences in survival with monitoring versus active lead management approaches. There is no evidence to support fluoroscopic screening for externalization of Riata or Riata ST leads.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.