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

• DOI: 10.1111/pace.13385
• Publication Date: 2018-06-12T12:35:02Z
• Authors: Diego Pérez Díez; José Manuel Rubín; David Calvo Cuervo; Daniel García Igl...; César Morís De La...
• Keywords: Sprint

Abstract Background and objectives Early failure of Biotronik Linox Smart leads (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) has been reported in numerous recent publications. The aim this study was to assess the performance lead compared with that two other contemporary leads. Methods We conducted an ambispective all consecutive first implantations defibrillator carried out our center: Endotak (model 148, 158, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) (n = 173), Sprint Quattro 6644, 6947, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) 145), model SD 65/16) 120). Results During a median follow‐up 4.6 ± 2.1 years, occurred nine (7.5%), one Reliance (0.6%), no survival probability group significantly lower than groups measured by log‐rank test (Linox vs Endotak; P < 0.001 Quattro; 0.001). Nonphysiological signals not due external interference were observed leads, normal parameters without visible anomalies on chest x‐ray. Conclusions In single‐center experience, rate 88% at 5 years follow‐up, which Comprehensive vigilance including home monitoring, may be advisable facilitate early detection avoid inappropriate shocks.