Abstract:Background Current methods to identify cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) lead failure include post-approval studies, which may be limited in scope, participant numbers, and attrition; studies relying on administrative codes, which lack specificity; and voluntary adverse event reporting, which cannot determine incidence or attribution to the lead. Objective To determine whether adjudicated remote monitoring (RM) data can address these limitations and augment lead safety evaluation. Methods Among 48,191 actively monitored patients with CIEDs, we identified RM transmissions signifying incident lead abnormalities and, separately, identified all leads abandoned or extracted between 4/1/19-4/1/21. We queried electronic health record (EHR) and Medicare fee-for-service claims data to determine if patients had administrative codes for lead failure. We verified lead failure through manual EHR review. Results Of 48,191 patients, 1170 (2.4%) had incident lead abnormalities detected on RM. Of these, 409 patients had administrative codes for lead failure, and 233 (57.0%) of these patients had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Among the 761 patients without administrative codes, 167 (21.9%) had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Thus, 400 (66.7%) total patients with RM transmissions suggestive of lead abnormalities had structural lead failure. In addition, 200 patients without preceding abnormal remote transmissions had leads abandoned or extracted for structural failure. Patients with isolated right atrial or left ventricular lead failure were less likely to have lead replacement and administrative codes reflective of lead failure. Conclusion Remote monitoring may strengthen real-world assessment of lead failure, particularly for leads where patients do not undergo replacement.

Diagnostic Approach to Suspected Lead Failure

Systematic Review of Leadless Pacemaker

Efficacy Analysis of Pace/Sense Lead Implantation in Management of Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Malfunction

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

ICD lead failure detection in chronic soaked leads

Overcoming Lead Penetration Failure in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

Unintended Sequalae of Long-Term Transvenous Pacemaker Leads in a Patient With Congenital Heart Disease

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

Lead Management: Device Programming and Defibrillation Threshold Testing

Lead performance of stylet-driven leads in left bundle branch area pacing: results from a large single-center cohort and insights from in-vitro bench testing

Loss of capture of conduction system pacemaker caused by fibrosis surrounding the lead: a case report

Interaction between left bundle branch area pacing lead and defibrillator lead: a case report.

Lead Failure After Vagus Nerve Stimulation Implantation: Radiographic Examination and Revision Surgery

Pacing and Defibrillation Consideration in the Era of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement

Novel atrioventricular sequential pacing approach using a transvenous atrial pacemaker and a leadless pacemaker: a case report

Lb-469803-01 Leadr In Defibrillation: Global Pivotal Trial Results Of A Novel, Small-Diameter Defibrillation Lead Designed For Reliability

Lead Management in Special Scenarios

Transvenous endocardial pacing with SelectSecureTM 3830 lead in pediatric patients: case series of two infants and a literature review

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

Could Persistency of Current of Injury Forecast Successful Active-Fixation Pacing Lead Implantation?

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