Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry

Comparison of Single-Coil Versus Dual-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Extraction-Related Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are battery-operated devices used to manage irregular heart rhythms and deliver therapeutic shocks to the heart. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and extraction-related outcomes of single-coil versus dual-coil ICDs in view of conflicting data.

METHODS

Several databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, were comprehensively explored dating from inception to April 1, 2024. Data were compared using odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), and mean differences (MD). A value of p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 28 studies were included in this quantitative synthesis. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) indicated statistical superiority in the dual-coil cohort (MD: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-1.09; p = 0.03). In addition, all-cause mortality was significantly elevated in the dual-coil cohort (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.87-0.97; p = 0.001). Furthermore, implant time was significantly lower in the single-coil group (MD: -7.44; 95% CI: -13.44 to -1.43; p = 0.02). Other outcomes, including first shock efficacy, cardiac mortality, post-extraction major complications, post-extraction procedural success, and post-extraction mortality, did not demonstrate any significant statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, despite the desirable safety profile of single-coil ICDs, the use of dual-coil ICDs continues to hold merit due to their superior efficacy and advanced sensing capabilities, especially in complex cases. In addition, the perceived risk of a greater adverse profile in dual-coil lead extraction can be refuted by preliminary aggregate results generated within this meta-analysis. However, further robust studies are warranted before arriving at a valid conclusion.

Additional coils mitigate elevated defibrillation threshold in right-sided implantable cardioverter defibrillator generator placement: a simulation study

AIMS

The standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator (can) is placed in the left pectoral area; however, in certain circumstances, right-sided cans may be required which may increase defibrillation threshold (DFT) due to suboptimal shock vectors. We aim to quantitatively assess whether the potential increase in DFT of right-sided can configurations may be mitigated by alternate positioning of the right ventricular (RV) shocking coil or adding coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and coronary sinus (CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of CT-derived torso models was used to assess DFT of ICD configurations with right-sided cans and alternate positioning of RV shock coils. Efficacy changes with additional coils in the SVC and CS were evaluated. A right-sided can with an apical RV shock coil significantly increased DFT compared to a left-sided can [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P < 0.001]. Septal positioning of the RV coil led to a further DFT increase when using a right-sided can [26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J, P < 0.001], but not a left-sided can [12.1 (8.1, 17.6) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P = 0.099). Defibrillation threshold of a right-sided can with apical or septal coil was reduced the most by adding both SVC and CS coils [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 6.6 (3.9, 9.9) J, P < 0.001, and 26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 12.1 (5.7, 13.5) J, P < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Right-sided, compared to left-sided, can positioning results in a 50% increase in DFT. For right-sided cans, apical shock coil positioning produces a lower DFT than septal positions. Elevated right-sided can DFTs may be mitigated by utilizing additional coils in SVC and CS.

Lead fixation mechanism impacts outcome of transvenous lead extraction: Data from the European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry

AIMS

The aims of this study is to characterize the transvenous lead extraction (TLE) population with active (A) compared with passive fixation (PFix) leads and to compare the safety, efficacy, and ease of extracting active fixation (AFix) compared with PFix right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry (ELECTRa) was analysed. Patients were divided into three groups; those with only AFix, only PFix, and combined Fix leads. Three outcomes were defined. Difficult extraction, complete radiological, and clinical success. Multivariate model was used to analyse the independent effect of Fix mechanism on these outcomes. The study included 2815 patients, 1456 (51.7%) with only AFix leads, 982 (34.9%) with only PFix leads, and 377 (13.4%) with combined Fix leads. Patients with AFix leads were younger with shorter lead dwelling time. Infection was the leading cause for TLE among the combined Fix group with lowest rates among AFix group. No difference in complications rates was noted between patients with only AFix vs. PFix leads. Overall, there were 1689 RA (1046 AFix and 643 PFix) and 2617 RV leads (1441 AFix and 1176 PFix). Multivariate model demonstrated that PFix is independently associated with more difficult extraction for both RA and RV leads, lower radiological success in the RA but has no effect on clinical success.

CONCLUSION

Mechanism of Fix impact the ease of TLE of RA and RV leads and rates of complete radiological success in the RA but not clinical success. These findings should be considered during implantation and TLE procedures.

Effectiveness and safety of transvenous extraction of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads at single-center experience

The available literature lacks data concerning direct comparison of the effectiveness and safety of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads transvenous extraction. Certainly, additional shocking coil in superior vena cava adds to the amount of metal in the vascular system. Adhesions developing around the superior vena cava coil add to the difficulty of extraction of ICD lead if lead removal is required. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single- and dual-coil ICD leads transvenous extraction using mechanical systems. We performed transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of 197 ICD leads in 196 patients. There were 46 (23.3%) dual-coil leads removed from 46 (23.5%) patients. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 25.0% of patients. The following extracting techniques were used: manual direct traction, mechanical telescopic sheaths, controlled-rotation mechanical sheaths, and femoral approach. Complete ICD lead removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = .41 and 99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = 0.41, respectively). We did not find significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (2.0% in single-coil vs 4.3% in dual-coil, and 0.7% in single-coil vs 0.0% in dual-coil, P = .58, respectively). There was 1 death associated with the TLE procedure of single-coil lead.This study shows that extraction of dual-coil leads seems to be comparably safe and effective to extraction of single-coil leads. On the other hand, it requires longer fluoroscopy time and frequent utilization of advanced tools.

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates.

CONCLUSION

In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

Comparison of single-coil lead versus dual-coil lead of implantable cardioverter defibrillator on lead-related venous complications in a canine model

PURPOSE

Dual- coil lead (DCL) of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is preferred clinically in patients. However, it is related to higher risk of venous stenosis and thrombosis. The present study was done to compare the fibrosis and extraction of the leads between the single-coil lead (SCL) and DCL in animal models.

METHODS

This was a chronic animal study with a follow-up duration of 6 months. Twenty mongrel dogs were randomly divided into DCL group or SCL group. Venography was performed before the sacrifice to evaluate the venous stenosis in vivo. The maximum pulling-out tension of the ICD lead was measured by a tensometer. Hematoxylin-eosin stain and toluidine blue O stain were applied to show the pathological changes of the superior vena cava (SVC) to evaluate the fibrosis and the thickness of the SVC adjacent to the leads.

RESULTS

The DCL group showed higher incidence of venous stenosis (OR = 31.5; 95% CI, 2.35-422.3; p = 0.005). It revealed increased tension to extract the leads in the DCL group (5.96 ± 1.86 vs. 3.68 ± 1.46 N, p = 0.027). The difference of venous wall thickness of SVC was 4.3 ± 0.3 fold-changes between two groups (p = 0.007). Moreover, the degree of venous wall fibrosis in DCL group was more serious than that it in SCL group (3.61 ± 1.26 vs. 1.08 ± 1.35 mm², p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

The DCL was proved to increase thrombosis, fibrosis, and stenosis in the SVC. Likewise, the DCL was mechanically harder to be extracted than the SCL. Our study showed that lead-related complications of the DCLs were higher than those of the SCLs regardless of the equal defibrillation thresholds between them. Results of the present study would help to choose the proper lead which could be removed.

Should Single-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads Be Used in all Patients?

The historical preference for dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads stems from high defibrillation thresholds associated with old device platforms. The high safety margins generated by contemporary devices have rendered the modest difference in defibrillation efficacy between single- and dual-coil leads clinically insignificant. Cohort data demonstrating worse lead extraction outcomes and higher all-cause mortality have brought the incremental utility of an superior vena cava coil into question. This article summarizes the current literature and re-evaluates the utility of dual-coil leads in the context of modern device technology.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation with or Without Defibrillation Testing

Defibrillation testing (DFT) during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is still considered standard of care in some, but in increasingly fewer centers. The goal is to ensure that the device system functions as intended by testing in the controlled laboratory setting. Although safe, complications can occur and DFT is associated with an increased procedural time and cost. DFT is useful in assessing device function when programming changes or patient characteristics raise concerns regarding ICD efficacy. DFT remains standard of practice following implantation of subcutaneous ICDs and other specific circumstances. Implanting physicians should remain familiar with the process of DFT and situations where it is useful for individual patients.

Impact of quadripolar LV leads on heart failure hospitalization rates among patients implanted with CRT-D: data from the Israeli ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF); however, a third of patients are non-responders. The development of quadripolar left ventricular (LV) lead was shown, mainly in single manufactures' registry, to improve LV remodeling and overall mortality. However, limited reports exist on the impact of quadripolar LV leads on HF hospitalization rates in real-life cohorts. We evaluated the clinical outcomes associated with quadripolar LV leads in a large nation-wide registry including all patients implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D).

METHODS

Between July 2010 and October 2016, 2913 consecutive patients were implanted with a CRT-D and all were prospectively enrolled in the Israeli ICD Registry. Quadripolar LV leads were implanted in 973 (33.4%) patients during this period, and their clinical outcomes were compared to CRT-D recipients implanted with a bipolar LV lead. Primary endpoint was HF hospitalization rate.

RESULTS

Quadripolar leads were implanted more in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and for primary prevention indication and less in post-infarction patients and for secondary prevention of sudden death. Longer QRS duration was observed with quadripolar leads (147 ± 23 vs 143 ± 25; p < 0.001). Outcome event rate for 100 patient years revealed no difference in HF hospitalization rates between bipolar and quadripolar LV leads. Quadripolar lead implant led to lower cardiac mortality, with no influence on overall mortality. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in study endpoints between bipolar and quadripolar LV leads.

CONCLUSION

In a large real-life registry, implantation of quadripolar LV leads in patients with CRT-D did not influence HF hospitalization rates.