Background: Leads are often considered the weakest link in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, and lead dysfunction is a major concern for ICD recipients. The aim of this study was to compare the lead performance from three different manufacturers.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent ICD system implantation at Chiba University Hospital, Japan, between March 2008 and September 2017. The following leads were implanted in our center: Durata (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA, now Abbott) (n = 105), Linox and LinoxSmart (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) (n = 66), and Sprint Quattro (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 126).
Results: A total of 297 ICD leads were analyzed. Failure rates for Durata, Linox/LinoxSmart, and Sprint Quattro were 0.20%/patient year, 0.95%/patient year, and 1.84%/patient year, respectively, during a mean follow-up of 4.8, 6.4, and 3.0 years, respectively. The cumulative ICD lead survival probability was 98.9%, 100%, and 87.5%, after 5 years, respectively. The survival probability over the entire follow-up time as measured by the log-rank test was lower for Sprint Quattro leads than for either Durata (p = 0.011) or Linox/LinoxSmart (p = 0.028). The difference between Durata and Linox/LinoxSmart was not significant (p = 0.393).
Conclusions: In this single-center retrospective study, the performance of Sprint Quattro was lower than the performance of Linox/LinoxSmart and Durata leads. Large-scale, multi-center studies or manufacturer-independent registries may be necessary to confirm or reject self-reported survival probabilities from manufacturers' product performance reports.
Keywords: Durata; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Lead; Linox; Quattro.