4.6 Article

Failure of a novel silicone-polyurethane copolymer (Optim™) to prevent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead insulation abrasions

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 278-283

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eus245

关键词

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Lead; Insulation; Complications; Failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 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. We searched the US Food and Drug Administrations (FDAs) Manufacturers and User Device Experience (MAUDE) database on 13 April 2012 using the simple search terms oRiata ST Optim abrasion analysis' and oDurata 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. Riata 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据