CR Ellis reports consulting fees/honorarium from Tyrx Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Comparative Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Sprint Fidelis and Riata Defibrillator Leads: A Single Center Experience
Article first published online: 12 SEP 2013
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Volume 25, Issue 1, pages 36–42, January 2014
How to Cite
RICHARDSON, T. D., KOLEK, M. J., GOYAL, S. K., SHOEMAKER, M. B., LEWIS, A. A., ROTTMAN, J. N., WHALEN, S. P. and ELLIS, C. R. (2014), Comparative Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Sprint Fidelis and Riata Defibrillator Leads: A Single Center Experience. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 25: 36–42. doi: 10.1111/jce.12265
JN Rottman is an uncompensated member of Spectranetics Advisory Board; he received fellowship support and participated on a research grant supported by St. Jude Medical and received fellowship support from Medtronic. Other authors: No disclosures.
- Issue published online: 8 JAN 2014
- Article first published online: 12 SEP 2013
- Accepted manuscript online: 21 AUG 2013 03:39PM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 12 AUG 2013
- Manuscript Revised: 5 AUG 2013
- Manuscript Received: 13 JUN 2013
- St. Jude Medical
- implantable cardioverter defibrillator;
- lead extraction;
- Riata lead;
- Sprint Fidelis lead
Comparison of Extraction of Recalled Defibrillator Leads
The FDA has issued class I advisories for Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® and St. Jude Medical RiataTM ICD lead families. Transvenous RiataTM ICD lead extraction is typically considered higher risk than Fidelis® extraction, based on longer duration from implant, presence of externalized conductors and lack of silicone backfill in the SVC and RV coils. However, published data comparing procedural outcomes between these leads are limited.
Records were reviewed for all patients undergoing transvenous extraction of Sprint Fidelis® or RiataTM ICD leads at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute from July 2006 to April 2013 to ascertain indication for extraction, procedural details, complications, and 30-day mortality.
There were significant differences between those undergoing extraction of a Sprint Fidelis® (n = 145) or RiataTM lead (n = 47). In the RiataTM group, device-related endocarditis was a more common indication for extraction, the mean duration of implant was longer, and larger excimer laser sheaths were required. Lead malfunction was a more common indication in the Fidelis® group. There were no statistically significant differences in median procedure duration, procedural success (97.9% vs 95.7%, P = 0.41), median length of hospital stay (1 day vs 1 day, P = 0.23), procedural complication rate (5.5% vs 10.6%, P = 0.23) or 30-day mortality (2.1% vs 2.1%, P = 0.98). Analyses excluding patients with device infection revealed similar results.
Despite differences in baseline characteristics, this study indicates that Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® and St. Jude RiataTM ICD leads have similar procedural outcomes with transvenous lead extraction.