Insulation Failure of the Linox Defibrillator Lead: A Case Report and Retrospective Review of a Single Center Experience

Systematic Review on S-ICD Lead Extraction

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) have emerged in recent years as a valid alternative to traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs). Therefore, the number of S-ICD implantations is rising, leading to a consequent increase in S-ICD-related complications sometimes requiring complete device removal. Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to gather all the available literature on S-ICD lead extraction (SLE), with particular reference to the type of indication, techniques, complications and success rate.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to 21 November 2022. The search strategy adopted was developed using the following key words: subcutaneous, S-ICD, defibrillator, ICD, extraction, explantation. Studies were included if they met both of the following criteria: (1) inclusion of patients with S-ICD; (2) inclusion of patients who underwent SLE.

RESULTS

Our literature search identified 238 references. Based on the abstract evaluation, 38 of these citations were considered potentially eligible for inclusion, and their full texts were analyzed. We excluded 8 of these studies because no SLE was performed. Eventually, 30 studies were included, with 207 patients who underwent SLE. Overall, the majority of SLEs were performed for non-infective causes (59.90%). Infection of the device (affecting either the lead or the pocket) was the cause of SLE in 38.65% of cases. Indication data were not available in 3/207 cases. The mean dwelling time was 14 months. SLEs were performed using manual traction or with the aid of a tool designed for transvenous lead extraction (TLE), including either a rotational or non-powered mechanical dilator sheath.

CONCLUSIONS

SLE is performed mainly for non-infective causes. Techniques vary greatly across different studies. Dedicated tools for SLE might be developed in the future and standard approaches should be defined. In the meantime, authors are encouraged to share their experience and data to further refine the existing variegated approaches.

Performance of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead family

BACKGROUND

Lead failure is the major limitation in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Long-term follow-up data for Biotronik Linox ICD leads are limited. Therefore, we analyzed the performance of all these leads implanted at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All Linox and Linox Smart ICD leads implanted between 2006 and 2015 were identified. Lead failure was defined as electrical dysfunction (oversensing, abnormal impedance, exit block). Lead survival was described, according to Kaplan-Meier. Associations between lead failure and specific variables were examined. p < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

We included 417 ICD leads. The median follow-up time for Linox (n = 205) was 81 months and for Linox Smart (n = 212) 75 months. During that follow-up time, 30 Linox (14.6%) and 16 Linox Smart leads (7.6%) showed a malfunction. The 5-year lead survival probability was 97.4% for Linox and 95.2% for Linox Smart (log-rank test, p = .19). The 6- and 8-year lead survival probability for Linox was 93.6% and 84.6%, and for Linox Smart 93% and 91.9%. The only factor significantly associated with lead failure was younger patient age at implantation (hazard ratio/year: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94-0.99, p = .002).

CONCLUSION

This relatively large study with a long follow-up period highlights a relevant failure rate of Biotronik Linox leads. The performance of Linox versus Linox Smart ICD leads was comparable. Although we show an acceptable 5-year lead survival probability, we observed a marked drop after just 1 more year of follow-up. In an era of improving heart failure survival probability, a prolonged follow-up of ICD leads is increasingly clinically relevant.

Long-term longevity and clinical outcomes of Linox S/SD implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: a single-center experience

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of the Biotronik Linox S/SD leads in 2006, there have been multiple reports of premature lead failure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the longevity of the Linox S/SD leads and to identify the possible predictors of lead failure in a single tertiary implant center.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent implantation of Linox S/SD leads or Sorin Vigila 1CR/2CR leads (the same Linox S/SD leads marketed by Sorin) at our center. The cumulative lead survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve, and variables associated with lead failure were assessed by Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients (154 (82%) male) underwent Linox S/SD or Vigila 1CR/2CR implantation between 2007 and 2013. During follow-up with a median time of 75 months, nine lead failures were identified (4.8%). The mean and median times from lead implantation to lead failure were 70.7 ± 21 months and 64 (45-111) months, respectively. The cumulative survival probability for the Linox S/SD at 5 years was 97.1% and at 12 years was 90.3%. Non-physiological high-rate sensing was the most common type of lead failure in patients. In two-thirds of these patients, this led to inappropriate shock. We did not find any significant relationships between patients' clinical and procedural characteristics and lead failure.

CONCLUSIONS

At our center, the 5-year lead survival of the Linox S/SD has been better than reports from other centers. The majority of lead failures presented as non-physiological high-rate sensing with subsequent inappropriate therapy.

Comparison of the performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads among manufacturers

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 Linox^Smart (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/Linox^Smart, 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/Linox^Smart (p = 0.028). The difference between Durata and Linox/Linox^Smart 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/Linox^Smart 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.

Analysis of early failure of Biotronik Linox Smart implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A comparative study of three defibrillator leads

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Early failure of Biotronik Linox and Linox Smart leads (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) has been reported in numerous recent publications. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of this lead compared with that of two other contemporary leads.

METHODS

We conducted an ambispective study of all consecutive first implantations of defibrillator leads carried out in our center: Endotak (model 148, 158, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) (n = 173), Sprint Quattro (model 6644, 6947, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) (n = 145), and Linox Smart (Biotronik, model SD 65/16) (n = 120).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 4.6 ± 2.1 years, failure occurred in nine Linox Smart (7.5%), one Endotak Reliance (0.6%), and no Sprint Quattro leads. The survival probability of the Linox Smart group was significantly lower than that of the Endotak and Sprint Quattro groups measured by the log-rank test (Linox vs Endotak; P < 0.001 and Linox vs Sprint Quattro; P < 0.001). Nonphysiological signals not due to external interference were observed in all Linox Smart leads, with normal parameters and without visible anomalies on chest x-ray.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center experience, the survival rate of Linox Smart leads was 88% at 5 years of follow-up, which was significantly lower than that of the other leads. Comprehensive vigilance of Linox Smart leads, including home monitoring, may be advisable to facilitate early detection of lead failure and avoid inappropriate shocks.

Prospective Assessment of Linox Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads for Structural or Electrical Abnormalities

INTRODUCTION

Insulation failure leading to conductor externalization (CE) of a Linox (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead has recently been reported. The aim of this study was to assess prospectively all Linox family ICD leads implanted at our center for evidence of CE or an electrical abnormality.

METHODS

All patients with a Linox family ICD lead implanted at our center, between November 2007 and March 2015, were identified and all living patients were invited to attend for fluoroscopic screening and electrical assessment of the lead.

RESULTS

A total of 183 patients had a Linox family ICD lead implanted at our center. Of these, 5 patients (2.7%) had the lead extracted because of electrical failure and 2 of these leads had evidence of CE. Out of 158 living patients with a Linox family ICD lead, 111 patients attended for screening (mean age 63.1 years, 22.5% female). In this group of patients, no cases of CE or electrical abnormalities of the lead were identified.

CONCLUSION

In this study evaluating 183 patients with a Linox family ICD lead implanted at a single center, 5 leads (2.7%) were explanted because of electrical failure and 2 of these leads had evidence of CE. Prospective fluoroscopic assessment of 111 Linox family ICD leads, with a mean dwell time of 31.5 months, revealed no further cases of CE.

Externalized conductors and insulation failure in Biotronik defibrillator leads: History repeating or a false alarm?

Conductor externalization and insulation failure are frequent complications with the recalled St. Jude Medical Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads. Conductor externalization is a "unique" failure mechanism: Cables externalize through the insulation ("inside-out" abrasion) and appear outside the lead body. Recently, single reports described a similar failure also for Biotronik leads. Moreover, some studies reported a high rate of electrical dysfunction (not only insulation failure) with Biotronik Linox leads and a reduced survival rate in comparison with the competitors. In this paper we describe the case of a patient with a Biotronik Kentrox ICD lead presenting with signs of insulation failure and conductor externalization at fluoroscopy. Due to the high risk of extraction we decided to implant a new lead, abandoning the damaged one; lead reimplant was uneventful. Subsequently, we review currently available literature about Biotronik Kentrox and Linox ICD lead failure and in particular externalized conductors. Some single-center studies and a non-prospective registry reported a survival rate between 88% and 91% at 5 years for Linox leads, significantly worse than that of other manufacturers. However, the preliminary results of two ongoing multicenter, prospective registries (GALAXY and CELESTIAL) showed 96% survival rate at 5 years after implant, well within industry standards. Ongoing data collection is needed to confirm longer-term performance of this family of ICD leads.

Comparative study of the failure rates among 3 implantable defibrillator leads

BACKGROUND

After the introduction of the Biotronik Linox S/SD high-voltage lead, several cases of early failure have been observed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to assess the performance of the Linox S/SD lead in comparison to 2 other contemporary leads.

METHODS

We used the prospective Erasmus MC ICD registry to identify all implanted Linox S/SD (n = 408), Durata (St. Jude Medical, model 7122) (n = 340), and Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific, models 0155, 0138, and 0158) (n = 343) leads. Lead failure was defined by low- or high-voltage impedance, failure to capture, sense or defibrillate, or the presence of nonphysiological signals not due to external interference.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 24 Linox (5.9%), 5 Endotak (1.5%), and 5 Durata (1.5%) leads failed. At 5-year follow-up, the cumulative failure rate of Linox leads (6.4%) was higher than that of Endotak (0.4%; P < .0001) and Durata (2.0%; P = .003) leads. The incidence rate was higher in Linox leads (1.3 per 100 patient-years) than in Endotak and Durata leads (0.2 and 0.3 per 100 patient-years, respectively; P < .001). A log-log analysis of the cumulative hazard for Linox leads functioning at 3-year follow-up revealed a stable failure rate of 3% per year. The majority of failures consisted of noise (62.5%) and abnormal impedance (33.3%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a higher failure rate of Linox S/SD high-voltage leads compared to contemporary leads. Although the mechanism of lead failure is unclear, the majority presents with abnormal electrical parameters. Comprehensive monitoring of Linox S/SD high-voltage leads includes remote monitoring to facilitate early detection of lead failure.

Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Lead Failure and Management

The implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead is the most vulnerable component of the ICD system. Despite advanced engineering design, sophisticated manufacturing techniques, and extensive bench, pre-clinical, and clinical testing, lead failure (LF) remains the Achilles' heel of the ICD system. ICD LF has a broad range of adverse outcomes, ranging from intermittent inappropriate pacing to proarrhythmia leading to patient mortality. ICD LF is often considered in the context of design or construction defects, but is more appropriately considered in the context of the finite service life of a mechanical component placed in chemically stressful environment and subjected to continuous mechanical stresses. This clinical review summarizes LF mechanisms, assessment, and differential diagnosis of LF, including lead diagnostics, recent prominent lead recalls, and management of LF and functioning, but recalled leads. Despite recent advances in lead technology, physicians will likely continue to need to understand how to manage patients with transvenous ICD leads.

Long-Term Evaluation of Biotronik Linox and Linox(smart) Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads

INTRODUCTION

Expert consensus holds that post-market, systematic surveillance of ICD leads is essential to ensure confirmation of adequate lead performance. GALAXY (NCT00836589) and CELESTIAL (NCT00810264) are ongoing multicenter, prospective, non-randomized registries conducted to confirm the long-term safety and reliability of Biotronik leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ICD and CRT-D patients are followed for Linox and Linox(smart) ICD lead performance and safety for 5 years post-implant. All procedural and system-related adverse events (AEs) were assessed at each follow-up, along with lead electrical parameters. An independent CEC of EPs adjudicated AEs to determine AE category and lead relatedness. The analysis used categories of lead observations per ISO 5841-2 (Third edition). A total of 3,933 leads were implanted in 3,840 patients (73.0% male, mean age 67.0 ± 12.2 years) at 146 US centers. The estimated cumulative survival probability was 96.3% at 5 years after implant for Linox leads and 96.6% at 4 years after implant for Linox(smart) leads. A comparison of the Linox and Linox(smart) survival functions did not find evidence of a difference (P = 0.2155). The most common AEs were oversensing (23, 0.58%), conductor fracture (14, 0.36%), failure to capture (13, 0.33%), lead dislodgement (12, 0.31%), insulation breach (10, 0.25%), and abnormal pacing impedance (8, 0.20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Linox and Linox(smart) ICD leads are safe, reliable and infrequently associated with lead-related AEs. Additionally, estimated cumulative survival probability is clinically acceptable and well within industry standards. Ongoing data collection will confirm the longer-term safety and performance of the Linox family of ICD leads.

[Multiple inappropriate defibrillator shocks due to insulation failure of a Biotronik Linox defibrillator lead with externalized conductor]

In this article the case of a patient who received a total of 35 inappropriate defibrillator shocks due to insulation failure with externalized conductor of a Biotronik Linox® lead is described. The implanted defibrillator was immediately inactivated and the failed lead was extracted using a laser sheath system.

Failure rate and conductor externalization in the Biotronik Linox/Sorin Vigila implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead

BACKGROUND

We observed a case of conductor externalization in a Biotronik Linox lead.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate lead performance of the Linox lead and the identical Sorin Vigila lead and prevalence of conductor externalization.

METHODS

We compared lead performance of all Linox and Vigila leads implanted at our center (BL group; n = 93) with that of all Boston Scientific Endotak Reliance leads (ER group; n = 190) and Medtronic Sprint Quattro leads (SQ group; n = 202) implanted during the same period. We screened all patients in the BL group for conductor externalization.

RESULTS

We identified 8 cases of lead failures in the BL group (index case of conductor externalization, 6 cases of nonphysiological high-rate sensing, and 1 case of high-voltage conductor fracture). Prospective fluoroscopic screening of 98% of all active BL group cases revealed 1 additional case of conductor externalization. The median follow-up was 41, 27, and 29 months for the BL group, ER group, and SQ group, respectively; lead survival was 94.9%, 99.2%, and 100% at 3 years and 88%, 97.5%, and 100% at 5 years (P = .038 for BL group vs ER group and P = .007 for BL group vs SQ group using the log-rank test). Younger age at implant was an independent predictor of lead failure in the BL group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.94; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

At our center, survival of the Linox lead is 88% at 5 years and significantly worse than that of other leads. Conductor externalization is present in a minority of failed Linox leads. Younger age at implant is an independent predictor of Linox lead failure.

Lead Integrity Alert Is Useful for Assessment of Performance of Biotronik Linox Leads

INTRODUCTION

Medtronic's Lead Integrity Alert (LIA) software algorithm is useful for detecting abnormal parameters across various ICD-lead families. However, its utility in the assessment of the Biotronik Linox™ family of high-voltage (HV) leads is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the performance of the LIA algorithm to detect abnormalities and lead failure in Linox ICD-leads. All LIA-enabled Medtronic devices connected to an active Linox lead were included. The alerts were adjudicated by 2 blinded electrophysiologists and correlated with clinical data.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2012, data from 208 patients with 564 patient-years of follow-up were available for analysis. The median follow-up duration was 32 (IQR 21-41 months). Twenty-one LIA triggers were noted in 20 different patients. The median delay until a positive LIA was 32 months (IQR 21-41 months) postimplant with a 5-year lead survival free from LIA of 76%. Ninety-five percent (19/20) LIA alerts were true lead failures. The most common LIA triggers were short V-V intervals (85%) and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (85%). Abrupt changes of the ICD-lead impedance occurred in 5/20 triggers. Inappropriate ICD-shocks were strongly associated with a positive LIA (30% vs. 7.4%; P = 0.006). Of the explanted Linox leads 53% had visible abnormalities. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for lead failure in the presence of a LIA trigger were 87%, 99.5%, and 95.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive LIA trigger in Biotronik Linox ICD-leads is highly predictive of lead failure. LIA is useful in ongoing surveillance of lead performance.

What did we learn from Riata™?

The Riata™ 8 French (Fr) and Riata ST™ 7 Fr families of silicone leads have experienced a specific form of insulation abrasion characterized by externalization of conductor cables outside the lead body. Design differences between the 8 Fr and 7 Fr leads make conductor externalization less likely in the smaller diameter lead. The Riata Lead Evaluation Study (RLES) reported on the prevalence of externalized conductors (EC) in patients implanted with Riata™ and Riata ST™ silicone leads and provided details on the incidence of electrical abnormalities in Riata™ and Riata ST™ leads with and without EC. The prevalence of EC was significantly lower for the Riata ST™ leads (7 Fr) as compared with Riata™ leads (8 Fr) (24/259 (9.3 %) vs. 125/517 (24.2 %), P < 0.001), and the majority of leads with EC were not associated with electrical malfunction. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the design of the Riata™ and Riata ST™ families of leads, provide details regarding the mechanisms and rates of lead failure, and discuss recommendations for patient management.