Premium
Analysis of Implantable Defibrillator Longevity Under Clinical Circumstances: Implications for Device Selection
Author(s) -
KNOPS PAUL,
THEUNS DOMINIC A. M. J.,
RES JAN C. J.,
JORDAENS LUC
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02482.x
Subject(s) - longevity , medicine , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , cardiac resynchronization therapy , cardiology , heart failure , gerontology , ejection fraction
Information about implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) longevity is mostly calculated from measurements under ideal laboratory conditions. However, little information about longevity under clinical circumstances is available. This survey gives an overview on ICD service times and generator replacements in a cohort of consecutive ICD patients.Methods: Indications for replacement were classified as a normal end‐of‐service (EOS), premature EOS, system malfunction, infection and device advisory, or recall actions. From the premature and normal EOS group, longevity from single‐chamber (SC), dual‐chamber (DC), and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT‐D), rate‐responsive (RR) settings, high output (HO) stimulation, and indication for ICD therapy was compared. Differences between brands were compared as well.Results: In a total of 854 patients, 203 ICD replacements (165 patients) were recorded. Premature and normal EOS replacements consisted of 32 SC, 98 DC and 24 CRT‐D systems. Longevity was significantly longer in SC systems compared to DC and CRT‐D systems (54 ± 19 vs. 40 ± 17 and 42 ± 15 months; P = 0.008). Longevity between non‐RR (n = 143) and RR (n = 11) settings was not significantly different (43 ± 18 vs. 45 ± 13 months) as it also was not for HO versus non‐HO stimulation (43 ± 19 vs. 46 ± 17 months). Longevity of ICDs was not significantly different between primary and secondary prevention (42 ± 19 vs. 44 ± 18 months). The average longevity on account of a device‐based EOS message was 43 ± 18 months. Average longevity for Biotronik (BIO, n = 72) was 33 ± 10 months, for ELA Medical (ELA, n = 12) 44 ± 17 months, for Guidant (GDT, n = 36) 49 ± 12 months, for Medtronic (MDT, n = 29) 62 ± 22 months, and for St. Jude Medical (SJM, n = 5) 31 ± 9 months (P < 0.001).Conclusion: SC ICD generators had a longer service time compared to DC and CRT‐D systems. No influence of indication for ICD therapy and HO stimulation on generator longevity was observed in this study. MDT ICDs had the longest service time.