Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing add-on pacing/sensing lead vs. ICD lead implantation for failed IS-1/DF-1 ICD leads: a single centre experience

Abstract

Background Intracardiac defibrillator/cardioverter (ICD) is a cornerstone device for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Lead failure (LF) is one of the most important long-term complications. In this study, we sought to investigate mid-to-long term clinical, device and lead characteristics of patients who have undergone pacing sensing lead (PSL) implantation for an ICD LF and compare them to the patients who have undergone a new ICD lead implantation. Methods In this retrospective, single centre, case-control study, we have screened all ICD patients presenting with LF. Patients with IS-1/DF-1 ICD leads with intact high-voltage conductor were included in the study group, while other patients were included in the control arm. Study group patients underwent PSL implantation, control group patients underwent ICD lead implantation. Results Thirty patients were included in each arm of the study. The mean duration of follow-up after intervention was similar in both groups (47.6 months ± 20.4 vs. 46.1 months ± 25.7, p = .808). The total failure rate was not different between two groups (p = .640). Rate of high-voltage conductor disfunction was also similar between two arms: 1 (3.3%) in PSL arm and 0 in control arm (p = .303). Conclusions Addition of a PSL for IS-1/DF-1 ICD LF with normal high-voltage conductor measurements is a viable treatment option with similar long-term results to addition of a new ICD lead. This approach is potentially less costly, technically less demanding, and, in case of concomitant extraction procedure, associated with less acute complication risk.