Management and long-term outcomes associated with recalled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A...

No comparative study of outcomes in Riata and Sprint Fidelis leads undergoing lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment (LA), and generator change only (GC) has been published.

Determine outcomes (major complications [MC]; death, extended hospitalization, or rehospitalization within 60 days [RH]; lead malfunction) of LE, LA, and GC for recalled leads.

Retrospective, multicenter, comparative study.

A total of 298 LE, 85 LA, and 310 GC were performed. In the clinical setting of a lead intervention, there was no difference in a composite of MC, death, RH, lead revision, inappropriate shocks, or device infection between LE and LA groups (15% vs 22%, P = .140). In the clinical setting of a device at elective replacement interval (ERI), there were significantly more acute events at 60 days (MC, death, and RH) in the LE and LA groups at 15.4% (4) and 15.4% (4), and this was significantly (P = .017) higher than the GC group at 5.1% (16). There was no difference (P = 1.000) in the composite of MC, death, RH, lead malfunction, lead revisions, device infections, or inappropriate shocks between LE, LA, and GC groups at 15.4% (4), 15.4% (4), and 17.4% (54), respectively. Following generator change, 14 of 175 Fidelis leads and 3 of 135 Riata leads failed over a total of 12,714 months of follow-up.

The failure rate of recalled leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. It may be prudent to perform generator change only when the device is at ERI, especially when the recalled lead has historical performance that likely outweighs the risks of extraction/abandonment.