Radiographic Predictors of Lead Conductor Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lead fracture is a limiting factor in high voltage lead durability. Fractures noted with the Medtronic Fidelis leads provide an opportunity to examine factors captured on implant chest x-ray that correlate with risk for lead conductor fracture. We evaluated contributory factors in a large population of fractures. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study at 8 Canadian centers that routinely capture anterior posterior and lateral chest x-rays within 2 weeks of implant. Cases were patients that experienced confirmed Medtronic Fidelis 6949 lead fracture based on standard definitions, matched one-to-one to controls for date of implant, sex, and age with normally functioning Fidelis leads from the same center. Select chart data and x-rays were collected for all patients. Radiographic measurements by ≥2 individuals per case/control were blinded to patient status. The data were analyzed using a time to failure multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with stratification for each matched pair. X-ray pairs from 111 fracture patients were compared with 111 controls (age 61.5±12.8 years, 75% male, 221 model 6949 leads). Six parameters included in the statistical analysis were significantly associated with risk of fracture, including slack/tortuosity measures, pulse generator and superior vena cava coil location, and angle of lead exit from the pocket. CONCLUSIONS: Pocket, intravascular and intracardiac lead characteristics on x-ray correlate with risk of lead conductor fracture. These observations may be useful to direct implant technique to optimize lead durability. Validation in larger populations and other lead models may inform the application of these results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".