Incidence of ICD Lead Related Complications During Long‐Term Follow‐Up: Comparison of Epicardial and Endocardial Electrode Systems

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the longterm stability of epicardial and endocardial lead systems for third‐generation cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and to assess the usefulness of diagnostic tools. One hundred forty patients with 61 epicardial (43.6%) and 79 nonthoracotomy systems (56.4%) were followed for 2 5 ± 19 months. A total of 18 (12.9%) lead related complications were documented. Complications of epicardial systems were detected in 10 patients (16.4%) during a follow‐up time of 36 ± 8 months: crinkling of patch electrodes in 6 patients (9.8%), insulation breakage of sensing electrodes in 2 patients (3.3%), and adapter defect in 2 patients (3.3%). Eight of the patients (10.1%) with transvenous‐subcutaneous systems had lead related complications during a 13 ± 6 months follow‐up: fracture of the subcutaneous patch lead in 2 patients (2.5%), dislodgment of the right ventricular lead in 2 patients (2.5%), dislodgment of the superior vena cava lead in 2 patients (2.5%), insulation breakage of sensing electrodes in 1 patient (1.3%), and connector defect in 1 patient (1.3%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of lead related complications between epicardial and endocardial systems (P > 0.05). Fractures, dislodgments, and crinklings were documented within the first 8 ± 5 months by regular chest X ray. Defects of insulation, adapter, or connector were detected 22 ± 10 months after implantation and were associated with delivery of multiple inappropriate ICD therapies. An operative lead revision was indicated for 4 epicardial (6.6%) and 6 endocardial (7.6%) lead systems. Conclusions: Endocardial lead systems offer a similar long‐term stability as compared to epicardial had systems. Chest X ray is the most useful tool to detect lead fracture, dislodgment. and patch crinkling. Marker recordings or real‐time electrograms have not been helpful in this series to identify patients with suspected lead defects prior to the experience of inappropriate ICD discharges.