In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.


The free consultation period for this content is over.

It is now only available year-round to EHRA Ivory (& above) Members, Fellows of the ESC and Young combined Members

10-year performance of Durata versus Riata implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads in clinical practice

Session Poster session 2

Speaker Thomas Kleemann

Congress : EHRA 2019

  • Topic : arrhythmias and device therapy
  • Sub-topic : Device Complications and Lead Extraction
  • Session type : Poster Session
  • FP Number : P1189

Authors : T Kleemann (Ludwigshafen,DE), F Nonnenmacher (Ludwigshafen,DE), M Strauss (Ludwigshafen,DE), K Kouraki (Ludwigshafen,DE), N Werner (Ludwigshafen,DE), R Zahn (Ludwigshafen,DE)

Authors:
T Kleemann1 , F Nonnenmacher1 , M Strauss1 , K Kouraki1 , N Werner1 , R Zahn1 , 1Medizinische Klinik B, Klinikum Ludwigshafen - Ludwigshafen - Germany ,

Citation:

Background: Data on long-term durability of Durata implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads compared to Riata leads in clinical practice are missing. Objectives: Aim of the study was to analyze the long-term performance of the Durata ICD leads compared to the Riata ICD leads in clinical practice. Methods:  A total of 1088 consecutive patients of a prospective single-centre ICD-registry were analyzed who underwent ICD implantation with a Durata (n = 506) or Riata (n = 582) ICD lead between 2002 and 2012. Only suspected or visible structural lead failure was considered as lead failure. Results: The estimated lead defect rates after 5 and 10 years were not different between the Durata and Riata leads (12% and 37% respectively 12% and 35%, p = n.s.). Riata leads more often had an insulation failure (79% versus 57%, p = 0.001), whereas lead fracture was more often present in Durata leads (43% versus 21%, p = 0.001). One third of patients in both groups had a radiological compression of the lead in the clavicular region whereas lead defect due to externalization was a rare cause of lead defect in Riata leads (2%). Durata leads with a DF-4 connector had a lower incidence of lead defects than Durata leads with a DF-1 connector (p = 0.007).

Conclusion: The lead defect rate of Durata leads after 10 years was similar to that of Riata leads. Externalization is a rare cause of lead failure whereas compression of the lead in the clavicular region and type of lead connector play an important role in the mechanism of lead failure.



Based on your interests

Three reasons why you should become a member

Become a member now
  • 1Access your congress resources all year-round on the New ESC 365
  • 2Get a discount on your next congress registration
  • 3Continue your professional development with free access to educational tools
Become a member now

Our sponsors

ESC 365 is supported by Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly Alliance, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance, Novartis Pharma AG and Vifor Pharma in the form of educational grants. The sponsors were not involved in the development of this platform and had no influence on its content.

logo esc

Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease

Who we are