P2859Low rates of mechanical failures of silicone-polyurethane copolymer-coated ICD leads: 11 years prospective follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background High rates of ICD lead mechanical failures (insulation abrasion and conductor fracture) resulted in FDA recalls and substantial design modifications. Most subsequent reports of lead failures of newer generation leads are based upon modest-sized, retrospective cohorts with relatively brief follow-up and may be unreliable. Following lead modifications (including silicone-polyurethane copolymer insulation coating), in 2007, one manufacturer established 3 prospective registries, and engaged a university-based methods center to independently review the registries, to adjudicate all reports of lead failures and to independently analyze lead survival. Up to 11 years of follow-up is now available. Purpose To adjudicate all reports of leads inactivated because of possible mechanical failure and to independently calculate rates of mechanical failure overall and by specific type. Methods Manufacturer expert staff confirm each lead inactivation by site interrogation. Following formal algorithms which incorporate lead testing and remote monitoring, they designate all-cause mechanical failure (fracture; insulation abrasion; failure at crimp, bond or weld; or uncertain) based upon the finding of electrical noise, very low or very high or rapidly rising impedance or alternatively they designate non-mechanical dysfunction (e.g. no impedance criteria but elevated thresholds, over or under sensing). The results of returned product analyses are incorporated when available (31%). The methods center receives electronic data transfers twice yearly, reviews all documentation, adjudicates all instances of possible lead failure, assigns probable cause (by 2 electrophysiologists) and conducts independent analyses of lead survival. Results 10,866 patients (73% male, mean age 65.9 yr., LVEF 29.3%, NYHA class II or III 89%) with 11,132 leads had follow-up of 4.6 yr. (median) and 11 yr. (maximum) (Aug 31, 2018). Lead follow-up was censored at the time of lead inactivation, death/transplant or administrative withdrawal. Of leads enrolled, there were 26.6% still in follow-up and of those not the status was 7.4% inactivated, 29.5% death or transplant, 33.8% administrative withdrawal and 3.7% reason missing. Following adjudication, there were 156 all-cause mechanical failures (1.40% total, 0.29%/yr.). Rates of cause-specific mechanical failures were: fracture 1.02% total, 0.22%/yr.; insulation abrasion 0.28% total, 0.06%/yr.; miscellaneous/uncertain 0.12% total, 0.02%/yr.; and externalized conductors 0%. Life-table rates of freedom from lead failure by 11 years were: all-cause mechanical failure 95.9%, conductor fracture 97.0%, insulation abrasion 99.1%, mechanical failure other/uncertain type 99.9%, and externalized conductors 100%. Conclusions Up to 11 yr prospective follow-up of silicone-polyurethane-coated ICD leads with independent adjudication and analyses of events shows low rates of all-cause mechanical failure and no externalized conductors. Acknowledgement/Funding Abbott
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".