Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices -> Leads & Electrodes: -> Technology D-PO04 - Poster Session IV (ID 15) Poster

D-PO04-106 - Long Term Follow Up Of Pacemaker Leads Raises Concerns About Tendril Lead Family (ID 1193)

Disclosure
 L. Zhang: Nothing relevant to disclose.

Abstract

Background: Performance concerns exist concerning Abbott’s Tendril pacemaker lead platform.
Objective: To assess performance of Tendril leads compared with other bradycardia lead families.
Methods: We identified all patients implanted with Abbott Tendril, Medtronic CapSure, and Boston Scientific Fineline, Ingevity, and Dextrus leads at a large academic medical center with longitudinal device follow-up. Clinical endpoints included repeated lead noise, abnormal impedance (<200 Ohms), and need for invasive intervention.
Results: We analyzed 904 leads (571 atrial, 333 ventricular), including 215 Tendril, 441 CapSure, and 248 Boston Scientific (25 Fineline, 175 Ingevity, 48 Dextrus) attached to 234 pacemakers (15 single, 299 dual, 20 CRT) and 250 ICDs (133 dual, 117 CRT). Median patient age was 68 (IQR 60-77), and 550 (61%) leads were implanted in men. During median 48 mos (IQR 21 - 97) followup, 44 leads (4.9%) experienced an endpoint, including noise only (n=31), low impedance only (n=11), or both (n=2). Tendril leads manifested endpoints more frequently than other types (HR 15.5, 95% CI 6.5-36.5, p<0.001). Noise occurred in 27 Tendril, 3 Capsure, 1 Fineline, and 2 Dextrus leads. All 13 leads with low impedance were Tendrils; 10 were model 1888. Invasive intervention was required for 13 leads, including 11 Tendrils (7 model 1888), 1 CapSure 5076, and 1 Fineline. Atrial leads manifested more endpoints than ventricular leads (27/33 noise [p=0.04], 9/13 low impedance [p=0.7], 9/13 interventions [p=0.7]).
Conclusion: Tendril leads, particularly model 1888, exhibit higher rates of electrical abnormalities than other leads, necessitating more invasive interventions.
Collapse