Prospective long-term follow-up of silicone-polyurethane–insulated implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundSt Jude Medical (now Abbott) Optim-insulated implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads were expected to overcome problems with insulation abrasion and externalized conductors in earlier models. Long-term follow-up is essential to the evaluation of lead performance.ObjectiveTo determine, in a prospective cohort of Optim-insulated ICD leads, the rates of all-cause mechanical failure and its subtypes (conductor fracture, insulation abrasion, externalized conductors, and other mechanical failures) and electrical dysfunction adjudicated as nonmechanical failure.MethodsAbbott established 3 prospective registries, enrolling 11,155 leads among 10,872 patients beginning in 2006. There was standardized baseline documentation, 6-monthly follow-up, adverse events reporting, and documentation of lead revision or inactivation, study withdrawal, and death or transplant. The Population Health Institute (McMaster University) reviewed database functions, adjudicated all potential mechanical lead failures, and conducted independent data analyses.ResultsDuring a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 171 mechanical failures (1.53%, 95.4% freedom from failure by 12 years). There were no significant differences in survival among Durata DF4 and DF1 and Riata ST Optim leads. The year-to-year rate of failure of leads increased over time. There were 69 electrical dysfunctions (0.62%, 98.8% freedom from failure by 12 years) adjudicated as nonmechanical failure.ConclusionDuring follow-up as long as 12 years (median 4.6 years), Optim-insulated leads had low rates of mechanical failure and electrical dysfunction. Independent analyses provide reliable data on the long-term outcomes essential to analyzing ICD lead performance. St Jude Medical (now Abbott) Optim-insulated implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads were expected to overcome problems with insulation abrasion and externalized conductors in earlier models. Long-term follow-up is essential to the evaluation of lead performance. To determine, in a prospective cohort of Optim-insulated ICD leads, the rates of all-cause mechanical failure and its subtypes (conductor fracture, insulation abrasion, externalized conductors, and other mechanical failures) and electrical dysfunction adjudicated as nonmechanical failure. Abbott established 3 prospective registries, enrolling 11,155 leads among 10,872 patients beginning in 2006. There was standardized baseline documentation, 6-monthly follow-up, adverse events reporting, and documentation of lead revision or inactivation, study withdrawal, and death or transplant. The Population Health Institute (McMaster University) reviewed database functions, adjudicated all potential mechanical lead failures, and conducted independent data analyses. During a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 171 mechanical failures (1.53%, 95.4% freedom from failure by 12 years). There were no significant differences in survival among Durata DF4 and DF1 and Riata ST Optim leads. The year-to-year rate of failure of leads increased over time. There were 69 electrical dysfunctions (0.62%, 98.8% freedom from failure by 12 years) adjudicated as nonmechanical failure. During follow-up as long as 12 years (median 4.6 years), Optim-insulated leads had low rates of mechanical failure and electrical dysfunction. Independent analyses provide reliable data on the long-term outcomes essential to analyzing ICD lead performance.
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) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».