 |
|
Pacemaker and ICD Generator Reliability
Meta-analysis of Device Registries
William H. Maisel, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2006;295:1929-1934.
Context Despite there being millions of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) generator implants worldwide, little is known about device reliability.
Objectives To perform a meta-analysis of prospective pacemaker and ICD registries to determine annual rates of pacemaker and ICD malfunction and to identify trends in these rates.
Data Sources MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through second quarter 2005), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through second quarter 2005), and a bibliographic review of secondary sources. Search terms included pacemaker, artificial; defibrillators, implantable; registries; performance; and malfunction.
Study Selection Eligible registries were prospective; reported the number of patients with pacemaker, ICD, or both; and allowed determination of the annual number of device malfunctions. Of 1007 references screened, 3 registries meeting the selection criteria were identified and included 2.1 million pacemaker person-years and 14 821 ICD person-years of observation.
Data Extraction Included the annual number of patients with pacemakers and ICDs at risk of device failure and the annual number of generator malfunctions (1983-2004 for pacemakers, 1988-2004 for ICDs). A device malfunction was defined as an integral component failure that required device explantation prior to reaching elective replacement. Failures of pacemaker and ICD electrodes were not included in the study.
Data Synthesis There were 2981 pacemaker and 384 ICD generator malfunctions. Pacemaker reliability improved markedly during the 1980s (P for trend <.001) and the pacemaker malfunction rate remained low during the remainder of the study. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reliability improved during the first 10 study years (P for trend <.001). From 1998-2002, however, the ICD malfunction rate increased more than 4-fold (P for trend <.001), before decreasing substantially in the latter 2 years of the study. Overall, the mean (SE) annual ICD malfunction rate was about 20-fold higher than the pacemaker malfunction rate (26.5 [3.8] vs 1.3 [0.1] malfunctions per 1000 person-years, P<.001). Battery malfunctions were the most common cause of device failure.
Conclusions Pacemaker reliability has improved markedly. In contrast, after more than a decade of improving device reliability, the ICD malfunction rate transiently increased before experiencing substantial reductions in the latter 2 study years. Whether increasing device sophistication accounts for the observed decrease in reliability is not known. Continued monitoring of pacemaker and ICD performance is required.
Author Affiliation: Cardiovascular Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
RELATED ARTICLES
Pacemaker and ICD Generator Malfunctions: Analysis of Food and Drug Administration Annual Reports
William H. Maisel, Megan Moynahan, Bram D. Zuckerman, Thomas P. Gross, Oscar H. Tovar, Donna-Bea Tillman, and Daniel B. Schultz
JAMA. 2006;295(16):1901-1906.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Complications Associated With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Replacement in Response to Device Advisories
Paul A. Gould, Andrew D. Krahn, and for the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Working Group on Device Advisories
JAMA. 2006;295(16):1907-1911.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pacemaker and ICD Malfunction—An Incomplete Picture
Bruce L. Wilkoff
JAMA. 2006;295(16):1944-1946.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators
Janet M. Torpy, Alison E. Burke, and Richard M. Glass
JAMA. 2006;295(16):1964.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The efficacy of ventricular pacing with device automaticity in paediatric patients
Tomaske et al.
Europace 2008;10:838-843.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Symptomatic heart failure is the most important clinical correlate of impaired quality of life, anxiety, and depression in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients: a single-centre, cross-sectional study in 610 patients
Johansen et al.
Europace 2008;10:545-551.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Tunnel Propagation of Postshock Activations as a Hypothesis for Fibrillation Induction and Isoelectric Window
Ashihara et al.
Circ. Res. 2008;102:737-745.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Year in Epidemiology, Health Services Research, and Outcomes Research
Krumholz and Masoudi
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2254-2262.
FULL TEXT
Sudden Death Prevention With Implantable Devices
Passman and Kadish
Circulation 2007;116:561-571.
FULL TEXT
Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads: The Weakest Link
Maisel
Circulation 2007;115:2461-2463.
FULL TEXT
Update in Critical Care 2006
Milbrandt et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2007;175:638-648.
FULL TEXT
Contemporary Pacemaker and Defibrillator Device Therapy: Challenges Confronting the General Cardiologist
Schoenfeld
Circulation 2007;115:638-653.
FULL TEXT
ICD and Pacemaker Malfunctions
Journal Watch Cardiology 2006;2006:9-9.
FULL TEXT
Management of recalled pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a decision analysis model.
Amin et al.
JAMA 2006;296:412-420.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
ICD and Pacemaker Malfunctions
Journal Watch Cardiology 2006;2006:2-2.
FULL TEXT
Pacemaker and ICD generator malfunctions: analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual reports.
Maisel et al.
JAMA 2006;295:1901-1906.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pacemaker and ICD malfunction--an incomplete picture.
Wilkoff
JAMA 2006;295:1944-1946.
FULL TEXT
|
