Abstract:Background: Over 100,000 Abbott Riata® were implanted in the United States before they were recalled in 2010. There are still a significant number of Abbott Riata® leads in use, and it is unclear how these leads should be managed at the time of generator change or lead malfunction. Although data comparing both Sprint Fidelis® and Abbott Riata® leads in this setting is available, there are no multicenter comparative studies of outcomes for various lead management strategies, including lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment/revision (LA), and generator change (GC) only at the time of device at elective replacement interval (ERI) for Abbott Riata® leads. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter study was undertaken to compare short-term outcomes (major complications-MC, death, extended or re-hospitalizations within 60 days-RH, lead malfunction-LM) and total outcomes (short-term outcomes & lead malfunction during follow-up) of patients with Riata® leads undergoing LE, LA, or GC. Results: 152 patients (65 ± 13 years, 68% male) were followed for a mean 33 ± 30 months following intervention. Out of 166 procedures, 13 patients underwent LE, 16 patients underwent LA, and 137 patients underwent GC. There was 1 major complication in each group, yielding an event rate of 7.7% for LE, 6.3% for LA, and 0.7% for GC cohorts. There were significantly more short-term and total adverse outcomes in the group of patients getting LE and LA versus GC only (38.5% & 31.3% vs 7.3%, P < 0.001). Total Riata® lead dwell time follow-up was 17,067 months. A total of 3 Riata® lead malfunctions were noted during long-term follow-up. Inappropriate shocks were similar between LE 7.7% (1/13), LA 6.3% (1/16). and GC 11.0% (4/136); P = 0.57. Conclusions: There were more short-term and total adverse outcomes in more invasive management strategies (LE and LA) versus GC alone. The failure rate of Riata® leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. Therefore, we recommend only performing battery exchange when a device with an active Riata® lead is at ERI, unless there is malfunction of the Riata® lead noted on testing.

Prevalence and management of electrical lead abnormalities in cardiac implantable electronic device leads

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Lead Safety: Harnessing Real-World Remote Monitoring Data for Medical Device Evaluation

[Experiences of Applying Home Monitoring for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices].

Short- and Long-Term Risk of Lead Dislodgement Events: Real-World Experience From Product Surveillance Registry

Timing of the most recent device procedure influences the clinical outcome of lead-associated endocarditis results of the MEDIC (Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort)

Risk Factors and Temporal Trends of Complications Associated With Transvenous Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Leads.

Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Device: The Impact of Systemic and Local Infection on Clinical Outcomes—An ESC-EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction Controlled) Registry Substudy

Poorer outcomes associated with more invasive lead management strategies for Abbott Riata® leads: a large, multicenter experience

Abstract 14907: Trends in Management Practices of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease

Incidental non-infectious masses on cardiac implantable electronic device leads

Trends and outcomes of inpatient cardiac implantable electronic device transvenous lead extractions: a nationwide analysis

Impact of lead position on tricuspid regurgitation, ventricular function, and heart failure exacerbation and mortality after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Preliminary results from the PACE-RVTR Registry

Riata lead failure manifests as electrical storm with lead parameters showing unique postural variations: a case report

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning

Transvenous laser lead extraction in patients with congenital complete heart block

Complex cardiac implantable electronic device infections in Alberta, Canada: An epidemiologic cohort study of validated administrative data

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in adults with tetralogy of Fallot

Safety of Lead Repair Compared to Lead Revision for Visible Lead Insulation Defects in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Comparing complication rates between Abbott Tendril 2088 and competitive manufacturer leads: Novel real‐world data approach

Comprehensive analysis of substernal lead removal: experience from EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies

Managing superior vena cava syndrome in patients with cardiac implantable electronic device leads: Strategies and considerations