Abstract 8952: Results of the Pediatric Lead Extractability and Survival Evaluation (PLEASE) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in children and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients is hampered by poor long-term lead survival. Lead extraction is technically difficult and carries substantial morbidity. Manufacturers developed distinct strategies for this issue: thinner lead bodies or a Gore ePTFE coil coating. Both design changes were thought to improve ease of lead removal, but have not been directly compared in children or adults. The purpose of this study was to assess thin and ePTFE-coated ICD lead survival in pediatric and CHD pts. Methods: The Pediatric Lead Extractability and Survival Evaluation (PLEASE) Study began as a Phase IV multicenter open-label prospective study [ NCT00335036 ], facilitated by the Pediatric & Congenital EP Society. Initially designed as a randomized study, it changed to a parallel assignment registry when 1 lead had an advisory due to high incidence of failure, prompting concern about continued clinical equipoise. Pediatric and CHD pts who underwent ICD lead implant from 2005-2010 were eligible. The end date was NCDR ICD Registry v2.0 release (includes pediatric & lead data). 23 centers participated; each site obtained IRB approval. De-identified data was sent to the PI center for verification and statistical analyses. Results: A total of 982 ICD pts (357 VVI, 558 DDD, 67 CRT-D) entered the PLEASE study, incl. 423 pts (43%) with CHD. Mean age at implant = 18.3 ± 9.9 yrs. Thin (< 7Fr) ICD leads accounted for 51%, 23% were ePTFE-coated, 26% neither thin nor coated. There were 113 ICD lead failures (11.5%) at a mean lead-age of 2.2 ± 1.7 yrs, causing shocks in 55 pts. Failure occurred in 21% of thin leads vs 3.5% of ePTFE leads (p<0.01). Extraction was performed on 142 (14.5%) leads overall; 21% of thin leads (incl. extraction of 29 functioning leads due to recall) vs. 4.4% of ePTFE leads (p<0.01). There were 7 major extraction complications (4.9%), but no procedural mortality. Among thin leads, 90/270 (33.3%) of recalled leads failed vs 15/229 (6.6%) non-recalled thin leads. Conclusions: This Phase IV study demonstrates that ICD leads in children and CHD pts have suboptimal performance overall. Thinner leads were much more likely to fail and/or be extracted compared with ePTFE leads, chiefly driven by one lead type.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".