Comparison of lead failure manifestation of Biotronik Linox with St. Jude Medical Riata and Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead

PurposeTo compare lead failure manifestation and lead performance of the Biotronik Linox/Sorin Vigila defibrillator lead (Linox group) with the St. Jude Medical Riata/Riata ST (Riata group) and Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads (Fidelis group).MethodsWe assessed the performance of all aforementioned leads implanted at our center and investigated the manifestation of lead failures.ResultsOf 93 Linox, 86 Riata, and 81 Fidelis leads implanted at our center, 11 (12%), 22 (26%), and 25 (31%) leads failed during a median follow-up of 46, 61, and 84months, respectively. Inappropriate shocks were delivered in 64% (Linox), 5% (Riata), and 32% (Fidelis) of lead failures; a device alert was noted in none (Linox), 5% (Riata), and 52% (Fidelis); and lead failure was a coincidental finding in 36% (Linox), 91% (Riata), and 16% (Fidelis) of cases (p<0.001). Non-physiological high rate signals were observed in 73% (Linox), 27% (Riata), and 80% (Fidelis) of lead failures (p=0.001) and damaged lead integrity was found in 36% (Linox), 73% (Riata), and 24% (Fidelis) of cases (p=0.064). Lead survival at 5years was 88%, 92%, and 71% for Linox, Riata, and Fidelis group, respectively.ConclusionsThe most frequent clinical manifestation of lead failure was inappropriate shocks for Linox, coincidental finding for Riata and device alert for Fidelis leads. Non-physiological high rate signals were frequently observed in Linox and Fidelis lead failures whereas in Riata lead failures, a damaged lead integrity was the predominant finding.