Impact of generator replacement on the risk of Fidelis lead fracture
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundA dilemma arises about the merits of conservative management vs lead replacement and/or extraction when patients with a Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead undergo generator replacement. Conflicting reports suggest that the fracture rate may increase after generator change.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of generator replacement on Fidelis lead performance.MethodsThe Carelink PLUS cohort is composed of 21,500 Fidelis leads (model 6949) implanted in 1,006 centers. The survival rate for leads that remained active after the first generator replacement was compared with that for a control group with matched lead implant duration, patient age, patient sex, and generator type using the Kaplan-Meier method. The control group’s starting point was adjusted to match the implant duration of each lead in the replacement group to allow for the comparison of similarly aged leads.ResultsOf the 2,988 implanted leads in each group, there was no statistical difference in the number of lead fractures between cases and controls (replacement, n = 227; no replacement, n = 257; Fisher exact, P = .169). Lead survival analysis demonstrated that lead performance since the first replacement procedure did not differ from that of the matched control group.ConclusionThe Fidelis lead survival rate after generator replacement does not differ from that of the Fidelis leads that have not had replacement. In the event of generator replacement with no manifestation of lead fracture, the lead model, patient age and life expectancy, ejection fraction, comorbidities, ease of extraction, local extraction expertise, and patient preference should be considered to determine the best course of action. A dilemma arises about the merits of conservative management vs lead replacement and/or extraction when patients with a Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead undergo generator replacement. Conflicting reports suggest that the fracture rate may increase after generator change. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of generator replacement on Fidelis lead performance. The Carelink PLUS cohort is composed of 21,500 Fidelis leads (model 6949) implanted in 1,006 centers. The survival rate for leads that remained active after the first generator replacement was compared with that for a control group with matched lead implant duration, patient age, patient sex, and generator type using the Kaplan-Meier method. The control group’s starting point was adjusted to match the implant duration of each lead in the replacement group to allow for the comparison of similarly aged leads. Of the 2,988 implanted leads in each group, there was no statistical difference in the number of lead fractures between cases and controls (replacement, n = 227; no replacement, n = 257; Fisher exact, P = .169). Lead survival analysis demonstrated that lead performance since the first replacement procedure did not differ from that of the matched control group. The Fidelis lead survival rate after generator replacement does not differ from that of the Fidelis leads that have not had replacement. In the event of generator replacement with no manifestation of lead fracture, the lead model, patient age and life expectancy, ejection fraction, comorbidities, ease of extraction, local extraction expertise, and patient preference should be considered to determine the best course of action.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».