Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
7303756
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Long-term electrical survival analysis of Riata and Riata ST silicone leads: National Veterans Affairs experience
Author(s)
Sung, RK; Massie, BM; Varosy, PD; Moore, H; Rumsfeld, J; Lee, BK; Keung, E
Year
2012
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
Heart Rhythm
ISSN:
1547-5271
EISSN:
1556-3871
Volume
9
Issue
12
Page Numbers
1954-1961
Language
English
PMID
22871583
DOI
10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.08.006
Web of Science Id
WOS:000311791900017
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
A medical device advisory issued by St Jude Medical in November 2011 estimated 0.63% all-cause abrasion rate on their Riata and Riata ST silicone high-voltage lead families (Riata/ST), leading to Food and Drug Administration class I recall. We performed an independent comparative, long-term electrical survival analysis of Riata/ST and 3 other high-voltage lead families in a large national cohort of patients.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate long-term electrical survival of Riata/ST leads relative to other commonly evaluated high-voltage leads.
METHODS:
Failure rates of Riata/ST, Sprint Quattro Secure (Quattro), Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis), and Endotak Reliance G/SG (Endotak) leads from the Veterans Administration's National Cardiac Device Surveillance Center database, consisting of 24,145 patients with remote transmissions since 2003, were analyzed. Survival Probabilities were determined with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and compared using the log-rank test.
RESULTS:
Of 1,403 Riata/ST, 6,091 Quattro, 5,073 Fidelis, and 2,401 Endotak leads identified, 5-year survival probability of Riata/ST leads (97.5%) was significantly lower than that of Quattro (99.3%) and Endotak (99.4%) leads (P <.0001) but higher than that of Fidelis leads (89.6%) (P <.0001). Riata ST leads showed a 5-year survival of 95.5% (95% confidence interval 92.4-97.4) compared to 98.4% (95% confidence interval 97.1-99.1) in Riata leads (P = .003).
CONCLUSIONS:
There is decreased survival probability of Riata/ST leads compared to other contemporary high-voltage leads, with decreased survival of Riata ST silicone compared to Riata lead series. Careful long-term follow-up should be maintained in patients with Riata/ST leads in order to prevent inappropriate shocks or failed device interventions. Our results were determined in advance of Food and Drug Administration class I recall, which suggested that large-scale remote monitoring may be an effective tool for continued implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system surveillance.
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity