MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408845997 · doi:10.1093/europace/euaf062

Sensing and detection performance of the novel, small-diameter OmniaSecure defibrillation lead: in-depth analysis from the LEADR trial

2025· article· en· W4408845997 on OpenAlexaff
Prashanthan Sanders, Pamela Mason, Bert Hansky, Paolo De Filippo, Maully J. Shah, Darius P. Sholevar, John S. Zakaib, François Philippon, Bernice Tsang, Rajeev K. Pathak, Travis D. Richardson, Meir Friedman, Robert D. Schaller, Ignasi Anguera, Attila Mihálcz, Babak Bozorgnia, Amy Thompson, Katherin Arias, Baerbel Maus, Chad A. Bounds, George H. Crossley

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersMedtronic
KeywordsLead (geology)MedicineDefibrillationDefibrillation thresholdAdverse effectInternal medicineShock (circulatory)Randomized controlled trialVentricleCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The Lead EvaluAtion for Defibrillation and Reliability (LEADR) trial evaluated the small-diameter (4.7 Fr), integrated bipolar OmniaSecure defibrillation lead. As previously reported, the trial exceeded primary safety and efficacy objective thresholds, demonstrating favourable performance and zero fractures through ∼12 months follow-up, with patients in ongoing follow-up. Longer-term follow-up of the LEADR trial with emphasis on the sensing and detection capabilities of the OmniaSecure lead is reported here. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with indications for de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillators/cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators were implanted with the OmniaSecure lead in standard right ventricle (RV) locations and followed at pre-specified intervals along with CareLink™ remote monitoring transmissions, where available. Throughout follow-up, the lead was evaluated for safety, efficacy, and reliability along with sensing and detection performance. There were 643/657 (97.9%) patients successfully implanted with the OmniaSecure lead with mean follow-up of 18.2 ± 5.5 months. There was a 96.9% freedom from major study lead-related complications at 24 months. Inappropriate shock rate was 2.7 and 3.8% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. At 24 months, 17.6% of patients received appropriate therapies (shock and/or ATP) with a 76.5% ATP efficacy. There have been zero fractures during follow-up along with chronically stable pacing capture threshold, pacing impedance, and R-wave amplitudes. There were four patients with an adverse event related to PWOS (0.6%), none of which was associated with inappropriate shock. There were four patients with an adverse event related to TWOS (0.6%), of which three patients were associated with inappropriate shock (0.5%). Oversensing was resolved predominantly by programming the RV sensitivity to less sensitive settings. During VF induction at implant, 97.6% (120/123) of patients showed appropriate VF episode detection at the least sensitive setting of 1.2 mV, with the remaining having detection at more sensitive settings. In follow-up, 670 VT/VF episodes were appropriately detected and treated in 94 patients with a variety of RV sensitivities and no reports of under-detected episodes. Moreover, a virtual sensitivity analysis also showed no under-detection across different RV sensitivity programming. CONCLUSION: Chronic sensing performance of the OmniaSecure defibrillation lead demonstrated R-wave stability with a low rate of P-wave and T-wave oversensing, resolved predominantly by adjusting RV sensitivity. Further, VT/VF detection was successful and was not impacted when programmed to less sensitive settings. The OmniaSecure lead shows robust sensing and detection performance and programmability in ongoing follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207