Sensing lead failure in implantable defibrillators: a comparison of two commonly used leads

Implants with Sensing Capabilities

Because of the aging human population and increased numbers of surgical procedures being performed, there is a growing number of biomedical devices being implanted each year. Although the benefits of implants are significant, there are risks to having foreign materials in the body that may lead to complications that may remain undetectable until a time at which the damage done becomes irreversible. To address this challenge, advances in implantable sensors may enable early detection of even minor changes in the implants or the surrounding tissues and provide early cues for intervention. Therefore, integrating sensors with implants will enable real-time monitoring and lead to improvements in implant function. Sensor integration has been mostly applied to cardiovascular, neural, and orthopedic implants, and advances in combined implant-sensor devices have been significant, yet there are needs still to be addressed. Sensor-integrating implants are still in their infancy; however, some have already made it to the clinic. With an interdisciplinary approach, these sensor-integrating devices will become more efficient, providing clear paths to clinical translation in the future.

Externalized Conductors and Electrical Dysfunction in Transvenous Ventricular Leads: Results of the Cardiac Lead Assessment Study

Background

The Cardiac Lead Assessment Study (CLAS) was a large prospective, multicenter, international postmarket surveillance study conducted at 45 sites.

Objective

The purpose of CLAS was to examine the prevalence and incidence of externalized conductors and electrical dysfunction in subjects with selected St. Jude Medical defibrillator and left ventricular leads.

Methods

Cinefluoroscopy was used to determine the presence of externalized conductors at enrollment and at 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up visits. Lead electrical measurements were collected systematically.

Results

The study enrolled 2216 subjects with a total of 2847 study leads. The prevalence of externalized conductors through 36 months for Riata leads was 30.9%, Riata ST leads 12.6%, Durata leads 0.5%, and QuickSite/QuickFlex leads 4.7%. The prevalence of electrical dysfunction through 36 months for Riata was 4.0%, Riata ST 3.3%, Durata 2.4%, and QuickSite/QuickFlex 0.3%. In Riata and Riata ST leads with externalized conductors, there was a low risk of electrical dysfunction. None of the Durata or QuickSite/QuickFlex leads with externalized conductors developed electrical dysfunction. There was no evidence of an electrical short in a high-voltage shocking circuit leading to failed shock.

Conclusion

A high prevalence of externalized conductors was found in Riata and Riata ST defibrillator leads, with a higher risk of externalization for 8F Riata leads than for 7F Riata ST leads. The 98% reduction in prevalence of externalized conductors in Durata leads compared to Riata/Riata ST leads confirms that the design improvements culminating in Durata leads significantly improved abrasion resistance and durability.

Unmasking of myopotential oversensing by an integrated bipolar defibrillator lead following AV node ablation

A 73-year-old man with nonischemic cardiomyopathy underwent catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia that had resulted in frequent shocks from his implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D). Coexisting atrial fibrillation required AV node ablation which rendered the patient pacemaker dependent. During follow-up, recurrent episodes of dizziness occurred caused by inhibition of pacing due to oversensing of pectoral muscle myopotentials. Surgical revision was performed and the intraoperative examination revealed an intact integrated bipolar defibrillator lead with appropriate connections to the CRT-D header. The placement of an additional pace/sense lead completely resolved the patient's symptoms and no further myopotential oversensing was recorded.

Causes of ventricular oversensing in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: implications for diagnosis of lead fracture

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) ventricular oversensing may result in inappropriate therapy, which may be triggered by lead/connection issues that require surgical revision or physiologic oversensing that may be resolved with reprogramming. The sensing integrity counter (SIC) is an oversensing diagnostic that increments for very rapid ventricular intervals < or =130 ms.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the causes of a high SIC and the ability of additional diagnostics to differentiate lead/connection issues from other causes of oversensing for patients with normal impedance.

METHODS

Frequent SICs were identified in patients during routine follow-up visits. To diagnose the cause of oversensing, patients wore a modified 24-hour digital Holter monitor that recorded ECG, ventricular electrogram, and the ICD Marker Channel (Medtronic). Recordings were reviewed to determine the causes of oversensing. Patients with confirmed oversensing and adequate data were analyzed. The number of SICs per day and the presence of a nonsustained tachycardia (NST) episode with ventricular mean cycle length <220 ms were retrieved from stored ICD data.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients had a median of 13 SICs/day. Presumed lead/connection issues occurred in 23% of patients, whereas physiologic oversensing occurred in 77% of patients. A rapid NST was recorded more commonly in patients with lead/connection issues than in those without (9/11 vs 1/37; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Oversensing resulting in frequent, very short intervals typically are caused by either lead/connection issues or physiologic signals. The additional finding of rapid NSTs usually indicates a lead/connection issue, even in the absence of impedance abnormalities.

[ICD lead defects: diagnosis and therapeutical options]

The number of cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) implantations has been steadily increasing; thus, ICD lead-associated complications are an important issue. No clear recommendations for the diagnosis and management are available. This article gives an overview of how to diagnose and manage an ICD lead defect. Possible therapeutic options are discussed by reviewing the literature.

Do abandoned leads pose risk to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients?

BACKGROUND

With the increased number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients and the frequent need for device upgrading, lead malfunction is a concern, but the optimal approach to managing nonfunctioning leads is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the rate and characteristics of complications related to abandoned ICD leads.

METHODS

Patients with abandoned leads were identified by retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic ICD database from August 1993 to May 2002. We reviewed the medical records to assess long-term follow-up for venous thromboembolic complications, device sensing malfunction, appropriateness of delivered shocks, defibrillation threshold (DFT) values before and after lead abandonment, and subsequent surgical procedures related to devices or leads.

RESULTS

We identified 78 ICD patients (81% males; mean age 63 +/- 14 years) with 101 abandoned leads (69 in the right ventricle, 31 in the right atrium or superior vena cava, 1 in the coronary sinus). During a mean follow-up of 3.1 +/- 2.0 years, neither sensing malfunction nor venous thromboembolic complications were detected. DFT values were high in 13 patients (17%), but there was no significant increase in mean DFT values before and after lead abandonment in 43 patients for whom both values were available (16.2 +/- 9.2 J before abandonment vs 14.1 +/- 5.5 J after; P = .24). Fourteen patients (18%) required further ICD-related surgery; none of these operations were attributed to abandoned leads. Five-year rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks were 25.9% and 20.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Abandoning a nonfunctioning lead appears to be safe and does not pose a clinically significant additional risk of future complications.

T-Wave Oversensing in Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators Is Due to Technical Failure of Device Sensing

The expanded indications for the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death have increased concerns about inappropriate delivery of therapies. Dual-chamber systems have improved the capacity of ICDs to differentiate ventricular arrhythmias from supraventricular arrhythmias. Still, T-wave oversensing is a major source of inappropriate therapy. It is likely the true incidence of T-wave oversensing is greater than reported as documented events reflect only those stored in a device memory. Reviewing cases of T-wave oversensing that failed noninvasive correction; we found successful resolution resulted from generator replacement. We conclude that T-wave oversensing is due to inadequate signal processing by some ICD generators.

Development and testing of an algorithm to detect implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead failures often present as inappropriate shock therapy. An algorithm that can reliably discriminate between ventricular tachyarrhythmias and noise due to lead failure may prevent patient discomfort and anxiety and avoid device-induced proarrhythmia by preventing inappropriate ICD shocks.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this analysis was to test an ICD tachycardia detection algorithm that differentiates noise due to lead failure from ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

METHODS

We tested an algorithm that uses a measure of the ventricular intracardiac electrogram baseline to discriminate the sinus rhythm isoelectric line from the right ventricular coil-can (i.e., far-field) electrogram during oversensing of noise caused by a lead failure. The baseline measure was defined as the product of the sum (mV) and standard deviation (mV) of the voltage samples for a 188-ms window centered on each sensed electrogram. If the minimum baseline measure of the last 12 beats was <0.35 mV-mV, then the detected rhythm was considered noise due to a lead failure. The first ICD-detected episode of lead failure and inappropriate detection from 24 ICD patients with a pace/sense lead failure and all ventricular arrhythmias from 56 ICD patients without a lead failure were selected. The stored data were analyzed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm to detect lead failures.

RESULTS

The minimum baseline measure for the 24 lead failure episodes (0.28 +/- 0.34 mV-mV) was smaller than the 135 ventricular tachycardia (40.8 +/- 43.0 mV-mV, P <.0001) and 55 ventricular fibrillation episodes (19.1 +/- 22.8 mV-mV, P <.05). A minimum baseline <0.35 mV-mV threshold had a sensitivity of 83% (20/24) with a 100% (190/190) specificity.

CONCLUSION

A baseline measure of the far-field electrogram had a high sensitivity and specificity to detect lead failure noise compared with ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation.

Inappropriate Discharges of Intravenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Owing to Lead Failure

We describe here the case of a 58-year-old female patient who experienced inappropriate shocks from her implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Stored electrograms from her ICD showed high frequency noise preceding the shock. Although the pacing threshold was normal and lead fracture was not found in chest X-rays, pacing lead impedance decreased to 480 omega. Moreover, such high frequency noise was observed by electrogram telemetry, but not by routine evaluation every 3 months. ICD lead dysfunction was suspected, so we elected to replace the ICD lead system. At the time of the operation, lead impedance was 410 omega and pacing threshold was the same as it was at the time of the ICD implantation, and no lead insulation disturbances were observed in the generator pocket. However, manipulation of the lead system produced high frequency noise reproducibly. Since some of the ICD lead dysfunction initially was clinically silent at rest, dysfunction was difficult to detect before serious problems occurred. Therefore, more careful evaluation of the ICD lead system is needed during long-term follow-up of ICD implants.

An algorithm to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this analysis was to test an algorithm that identifies implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead problems before clinical failure and/or inappropriate therapy.

BACKGROUND

The ICD lead failures typically present as inappropriate shock therapy. Identifying lead failures before their clinical presentation may prevent patient discomfort, improve device longevity, and avoid device-induced proarrhythmia.

METHODS

We tested an algorithm that uses two measures of oversensing and one measure of abnormal impedance to detect a lead failure. The oversensing measures consisted of a counter for RR intervals <140 ms and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia episodes with mean RR interval <200 ms. The impedance measure tracked lead impedances every day and each week. Abnormal impedance was defined as a decrease in impedances or an outlier value compared with baseline. Lead failures were identified when both oversensing measures were met or abnormal impedance and one oversensing measure occurred. The stored data from 696 patients with an ICD were analyzed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm to detect lead failures.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients demonstrated clinical lead failures with an average of 6 +/- 9 inappropriate shocks per patient. The two oversensing measures used in the algorithm predicted 72% (21 of 29) of the lead failures. Fulfilling at least two of the three impedance and oversensing measures, the sensitivity of our algorithm was 83% (24 of 29) with a 100% (667 of 667) specificity.

CONCLUSION

Oversensing combined with abnormal impedance trends may be used to identify ICD lead failures with high sensitivity and very high specificity.

Patient alert in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: toy or tool?

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to analyze the utility of patient-alert features in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

BACKGROUND

Various alert features producing acoustic warning signals have been implemented in newer generation ICDs, but their role in early detection of system-related complications has not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

In 240 patients implanted with Medtronic ICD devices, the following alert features were routinely activated: pacing lead impedance <200 or >2,000 Omega, high-voltage lead impedance <10 or >200 Omega, low battery voltage (elective replacement indicator), long charge time (>18 s), >3 shocks delivered per episode, and all therapies in a zone delivered. Alert events occurring during follow-up were assessed in relation to actual findings (hospital charts, chest X-rays, ICD printouts including sensing/pacing/defibrillation threshold tests, episode data) to determine incidence, sensitivity, and specificity of the alert function.

RESULTS

During 12.2 +/- 8.9 months, 24 alert events occurred in the 240 patients (pacing lead impedance, n = 4; high-voltage lead impedance, n = 7; low battery voltage, n = 1; >3 shocks, n = 6; all therapies, n = 6). A total of 22 serious complications (necessitating reprogramming or device/lead replacement) were observed, 14 of which were primarily identified through a patient alert (lead fracture, n = 11; connector defect, n = 1; T-wave oversensing, n = 1; battery depletion, n = 1). This reflects a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 96% of the alert function for serious complications. With 14 of 24 patient alerts being caused by serious complications, the positive predictive value reached 58%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-alert features are a useful additional tool facilitating early detection of serious ICD complications, but they do not substitute for regular ICD follow-up, because of their low sensitivity.

Detection and management of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure: incidence and clinical implications

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the long-term reliability of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead to determine the incidence, clinical presentation, and management of lead failure.

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances in ICD technology, the long-term reliability of ICD leads remains a significant problem.

METHODS

Concern about long-term reliability of coaxial polyurethane ICD leads caused us to systematically study all patients implanted with Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota) 6936 lead at our institution. We performed follow-up of 74 patients with 76 ICD leads that were implanted from February 28, 1995 to September 8, 1997. Thirty-seven patients underwent routine clinical ICD follow-up testing and ventricular fibrillation induction to determine the status of their ICD lead after a mean follow-up of 68.6 +/- 8.2 months.

RESULTS

The lead survival analysis shows a cumulative failure probability of 37% (confidence interval, 24% to 54%) at 68.6 months. Six patients demonstrated a previously undescribed mode of ICD lead failure: prolonged oversensing immediately after shock therapy. The use of short interval counters to monitor nonphysiologic R-R intervals and the measurement of ring-to-coil impedance detected early lead failures in five patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows: 1) problems with ICD leads may not become apparent until late during follow-up and may become a significant late problem, 2) a "signature" mode of lead failure for the 6936 consisting of oversensing of electrical noise following shocks, 3) early detection of lead failure with a short interval counter algorithm or measurement of ring-to-coil impedance may be clinically useful.

Ventricular oversensing: a study of 101 patients implanted with dual chamber defibrillators and two different lead systems

Modern dual chamber ICD systems are able to overcome various sensing problems. However, improvement of their performance is still required. The aim of this study was to assess the sensing function in 101 consecutive patients (84 men, 17 women; mean age 63 +/- 12 years; mean follow-up 24 +/- 4 months) implanted with dual chamber defibrillators and integrated (IB) or dedicated bipolar (DB) lead systems. Follow-up data were analyzed for the presence of ventricular oversensing. Oversensing occurred in 25 (25%) patients, significantly more frequent in patients implanted with IB compared to DB lead systems (21/52 vs 4/49, P = 0.0002). Patients with cardiomyopathies (CMs) were more prone to sensing malfunctions than patients with no CM (12/30 vs 13/71, P = 0.04). T wave oversensing (n = 14), respirophasic ventricular oversensing (n = 4), and P wave oversensing (n = 6) were the most common pitfalls of ventricular sensing. P wave oversensing was unique to the IB lead system. CT scans performed in these patients disclosed the position of the RV coil to be proximal to the tricuspid area. Four patients received inappropriate ICD shocks due to oversensing. In all but two patients who received lead revision, oversensing was resolved by noninvasive means.

IN CONCLUSION

(1) ventricular oversensing is a common problem occurring in up to 25% of patients with dual chamber ICDs; (2) P wave oversensing is a ventricular sensing problem affecting function of 11% of dual chamber devices with IB lead systems; (3) IB leads are significantly more susceptible to T wave and P wave oversensing than DB leads; and (4) patients with cardiomyopathies are more prone to oversensing than patients with other heart diseases.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.