Long-term electrical survival analysis of Riata and Riata ST silicone leads: National Veterans Affairs experience
BACKGROUND: A medical device advisory issued by St Jude Medical in November 2011 estimated 0.63% all-cause abrasion rate on their Riata and Riata ST silicone high-voltage lead families (Riata/ST), leading to Food and Drug Administration class I recall. We performed an independent comparative, long-term electrical survival analysis of Riata/ST and 3 other high-voltage lead families in a large national cohort of patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term electrical survival of Riata/ST leads relative to other commonly evaluated high-voltage leads. METHODS: Failure rates of Riata/ST, Sprint Quattro Secure (Quattro), Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis), and Endotak Reliance G/SG (Endotak) leads from the Veterans Administration's National Cardiac Device Surveillance Center database, consisting of 24,145 patients with remote transmissions since 2003, were analyzed. Survival probability was determined with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with the log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 1403 Riata/ST, 5608 Quattro, 5076 Fidelis, and 2401 Endotak leads identified, 5-year survival probability of Riata/ST leads (97.5%) was significantly lower than that of Quattro (99.2%) and Endotak (99.5%) leads (P <.0001) but higher than that of Fidelis leads (89.6%) (P <.0001). Riata ST leads showed a 6-year survival of 91.4% (95% confidence interval 81.3-96.2) compared to 97.0% (95% confidence interval 92.2-98.1) in Riata leads (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: There is decreased survival probability of Riata/ST leads compared to other contemporary high-voltage leads, with decreased survival of Riata ST silicone compared to Riata lead series. Careful long-term follow-up should be maintained in patients with Riata/ST leads in order to prevent inappropriate shocks or failed device interventions. Our results were determined in advance of Food and Drug Administration class I recall, which suggested that large-scale remote monitoring may be an effective tool for continued implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system surveillance.
Available from: europepmc.org
- "Recently, a medical device advisory board reported the prevalence and predictors of cable extrusion and loss of electrical integrity with the Riata® defibrillator lead.4) A large, multicenter retrospective analyses revealed that the long-term electrical failure rate of Riata/ST® leads is significantly higher than Quattro® or Endotak® leads.5) "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A 50-year-old man, who underwent a procedure for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), visited the outpatient department of our clinic after suffering multiple ICD shocks. The ICD interrogation revealed recurrent shock due to a high frequency of noise that is sensed by the device as ventricular fibrillation. Chest radiography revealed a significant split in the insulation of the lead allowing the inner wire to protrude. We considered the removal of the failed lead, but the removal of ICD lead is potentially a high risk procedure, so we cut and capped a proximal part of the failed lead and inserted a new lead. This is the first report of a St. Jude Riata® dual coil defibrillator lead failure with clinical and radiologic evidence of a defect in lead insulation in Korea.
Korean Circulation Journal 05/2013; 43(5):336-9. DOI:10.4070/kcj.2013.43.5.336 · 0.75 Impact Factor
Available from: Melanie Maytin
Heart rhythm: the official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society 09/2012; 9(12). DOI:10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.09.014 · 5.08 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Small-diameter ICD leads Sprint Fidelis and Riata have been recalled owing to an increased risk of lead failure, thus arousing the suspicion that lead size might be a critical issue. OBJECTIVE: to compare the incidence of failure of small-diameter (≤8Fr) and standard-diameter (>8Fr) ICD leads implanted in a single center. METHODS: From January 2003 to December 2010, 190 Sprint Fidelis, 182 Riata/Riata ST, 99 Optim (Riata Optim/Durata) and 419 standard-diameter leads were implanted in our center. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 33 months, the overall failure rate was 6.3%. Follow-up duration was similar for Sprint Fidelis, Riata and standard-diameter leads, but shorter for the Optim group. The failure rate was significantly higher in Sprint Fidelis leads compared to both standard-diameter (4.8%/year vs. 0.8%/year, P<0.001) and Riata/Riata ST leads (4.8%/year vs. 2.6%/year, P=0.03). The incidence of lead failure in Riata/Riata ST proved significantly higher than in standard-diameter leads (2.6%/year vs. 0.8%/year, P=0.001). No cases of lead failure were recorded in the Optim group. On multivariable analyses, small diameter (HR 5.03, 2.53-10.01, p<0.001), or Sprint Fidelis (HR 6.3, 3.1-13.3, P<0.001), Riata/Riata ST (HR 4.5, 1.9-10.5, P=0.001), and age<60years (HR 2.3, 1.3-4.3, P=0.005), were found to independently increase the risk of lead failure. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to standard-diameter leads, both Sprint Fidelis and Riata/Riata ST small-diameter ICD leads are at increased risk of failure, although the incidence of events is significantly lower in the Riata than in the Sprint Fidelis group.
Heart rhythm: the official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society 10/2012; 10(2). DOI:10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.10.017 · 5.08 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.