High predicted durability for the novel small-diameter OmniaSecure defibrillation lead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Defibrillation leads remain the Achilles heel of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. As patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are living longer and battery longevity increases, more durable leads are needed. The LEADR trial evaluated the novel, lumenless, small-diameter, OmniaSecure defibrillation lead and demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy profile as well as zero fractures through 12.7 ± 4.8 months and remains in clinical follow-up. To augment the clinical trial, advanced cardiac lead reliability modeling was used to project long-term lead durability. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to project the 10-year fracture-free survival of the OmniaSecure defibrillation lead using reliability modeling. METHODS: The validated reliability model, which incorporates patient and bench test data, was used to project the 10-year fracture-free survival of the OmniaSecure lead. A subset of LEADR trial patients underwent biplane fluoroscopy imaging during cardiac and patient motion to evaluate the lead's bending curvature in vivo. Bench tests then reproduced these use conditions with greater bending curvatures than observed in patients to exaggerate stress on the lead and to evaluate the lead fatigue strength. RESULTS: The reliability modeling projects a 98.2% fracture-free survival rate of the OmniaSecure lead at 10 years, including a 10-year fracture-free survival rate of 97.9% in adolescents, exceeding both the modeled and clinical 10-year performance of the highly reliable, larger diameter Sprint Quattro lead. CONCLUSION: Consistent with early clinical trial experience, modeling projects highly durable 10-year performance of the OmniaSecure lead, including within the active adolescent pediatric population, which may uniquely benefit from a novel 4.7F defibrillation lead designed for reliability. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04863664.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".