Multicenter experience with implantable defibrillators subject to recall

Laura Perrotta, Paolo Pieragnoli, Giuseppe Ricciardi, Stefania Sacchi, Giuseppe Mascia, Margherita Padeletti, Maria Grazia Bongiorni, Antonio Curnis, Fulvio Bellocci, Antonio Michelucci, Maria Cristina Porciani, Luigi Padeletti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) affected by advisories, which often include generator replacement, is complex and the risk of device failure needs to be carefully assessed for each patient. Methods: We analyzed the response to the advisory communication in the Italian centers involved in the recall for the Prizm 1861 and Renewal (Boston Scientific-formerly Guidant-St. Paul, MN, USA) communication. Results: One hundred and thirty-nine of 843 Prizm (16.5%) and 458 of 2,342 Renewal devices (19.6%) were explanted. The total incidence over a 4-year time frame of the failure event was equal to zero of 710 (0%) for Prizm ICDs and eight of 2,342 (0.34%) for Renewal ICDs. A limited percentage of devices affected by recall were definitely explanted following the indications stated by the advisory. The failure rates that resulted from analysis of our data (0% for Prizm and 0.34% for Renewal) were inferior to those already found or projected along the device lifetime globally, as reported in the most recent Company Product Performance Report (0.72% for Prizm and 1.83% for Renewal). Conclusions: In absence of underestimation of the events, a lower incidence than expected could resize the dimension of the problem, justifying the concept of a more frequent follow-up of patient with respect to the choice of an immediate device explant.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)998-1002
Number of pages5
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume34
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Equipment and Supplies
Communication
Equipment Failure
Incidence

Keywords

  • advisories
  • device failure
  • implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • risk analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Perrotta, L., Pieragnoli, P., Ricciardi, G., Sacchi, S., Mascia, G., Padeletti, M., ... Padeletti, L. (2011). Multicenter experience with implantable defibrillators subject to recall. PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 34(8), 998-1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03083.x

Multicenter experience with implantable defibrillators subject to recall. / Perrotta, Laura; Pieragnoli, Paolo; Ricciardi, Giuseppe; Sacchi, Stefania; Mascia, Giuseppe; Padeletti, Margherita; Bongiorni, Maria Grazia; Curnis, Antonio; Bellocci, Fulvio; Michelucci, Antonio; Porciani, Maria Cristina; Padeletti, Luigi.

In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 34, No. 8, 08.2011, p. 998-1002.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Perrotta, L, Pieragnoli, P, Ricciardi, G, Sacchi, S, Mascia, G, Padeletti, M, Bongiorni, MG, Curnis, A, Bellocci, F, Michelucci, A, Porciani, MC & Padeletti, L 2011, 'Multicenter experience with implantable defibrillators subject to recall', PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 998-1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03083.x
Perrotta, Laura ; Pieragnoli, Paolo ; Ricciardi, Giuseppe ; Sacchi, Stefania ; Mascia, Giuseppe ; Padeletti, Margherita ; Bongiorni, Maria Grazia ; Curnis, Antonio ; Bellocci, Fulvio ; Michelucci, Antonio ; Porciani, Maria Cristina ; Padeletti, Luigi. / Multicenter experience with implantable defibrillators subject to recall. In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2011 ; Vol. 34, No. 8. pp. 998-1002.
@article{fc8a1a1a604347bab49480e8f22433b3,
title = "Multicenter experience with implantable defibrillators subject to recall",
abstract = "Background: The management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) affected by advisories, which often include generator replacement, is complex and the risk of device failure needs to be carefully assessed for each patient. Methods: We analyzed the response to the advisory communication in the Italian centers involved in the recall for the Prizm 1861 and Renewal (Boston Scientific-formerly Guidant-St. Paul, MN, USA) communication. Results: One hundred and thirty-nine of 843 Prizm (16.5{\%}) and 458 of 2,342 Renewal devices (19.6{\%}) were explanted. The total incidence over a 4-year time frame of the failure event was equal to zero of 710 (0{\%}) for Prizm ICDs and eight of 2,342 (0.34{\%}) for Renewal ICDs. A limited percentage of devices affected by recall were definitely explanted following the indications stated by the advisory. The failure rates that resulted from analysis of our data (0{\%} for Prizm and 0.34{\%} for Renewal) were inferior to those already found or projected along the device lifetime globally, as reported in the most recent Company Product Performance Report (0.72{\%} for Prizm and 1.83{\%} for Renewal). Conclusions: In absence of underestimation of the events, a lower incidence than expected could resize the dimension of the problem, justifying the concept of a more frequent follow-up of patient with respect to the choice of an immediate device explant.",
keywords = "advisories, device failure, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, risk analysis",
author = "Laura Perrotta and Paolo Pieragnoli and Giuseppe Ricciardi and Stefania Sacchi and Giuseppe Mascia and Margherita Padeletti and Bongiorni, {Maria Grazia} and Antonio Curnis and Fulvio Bellocci and Antonio Michelucci and Porciani, {Maria Cristina} and Luigi Padeletti",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03083.x",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "998--1002",
journal = "PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "0147-8389",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multicenter experience with implantable defibrillators subject to recall

AU - Perrotta, Laura

AU - Pieragnoli, Paolo

AU - Ricciardi, Giuseppe

AU - Sacchi, Stefania

AU - Mascia, Giuseppe

AU - Padeletti, Margherita

AU - Bongiorni, Maria Grazia

AU - Curnis, Antonio

AU - Bellocci, Fulvio

AU - Michelucci, Antonio

AU - Porciani, Maria Cristina

AU - Padeletti, Luigi

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Background: The management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) affected by advisories, which often include generator replacement, is complex and the risk of device failure needs to be carefully assessed for each patient. Methods: We analyzed the response to the advisory communication in the Italian centers involved in the recall for the Prizm 1861 and Renewal (Boston Scientific-formerly Guidant-St. Paul, MN, USA) communication. Results: One hundred and thirty-nine of 843 Prizm (16.5%) and 458 of 2,342 Renewal devices (19.6%) were explanted. The total incidence over a 4-year time frame of the failure event was equal to zero of 710 (0%) for Prizm ICDs and eight of 2,342 (0.34%) for Renewal ICDs. A limited percentage of devices affected by recall were definitely explanted following the indications stated by the advisory. The failure rates that resulted from analysis of our data (0% for Prizm and 0.34% for Renewal) were inferior to those already found or projected along the device lifetime globally, as reported in the most recent Company Product Performance Report (0.72% for Prizm and 1.83% for Renewal). Conclusions: In absence of underestimation of the events, a lower incidence than expected could resize the dimension of the problem, justifying the concept of a more frequent follow-up of patient with respect to the choice of an immediate device explant.

AB - Background: The management of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) affected by advisories, which often include generator replacement, is complex and the risk of device failure needs to be carefully assessed for each patient. Methods: We analyzed the response to the advisory communication in the Italian centers involved in the recall for the Prizm 1861 and Renewal (Boston Scientific-formerly Guidant-St. Paul, MN, USA) communication. Results: One hundred and thirty-nine of 843 Prizm (16.5%) and 458 of 2,342 Renewal devices (19.6%) were explanted. The total incidence over a 4-year time frame of the failure event was equal to zero of 710 (0%) for Prizm ICDs and eight of 2,342 (0.34%) for Renewal ICDs. A limited percentage of devices affected by recall were definitely explanted following the indications stated by the advisory. The failure rates that resulted from analysis of our data (0% for Prizm and 0.34% for Renewal) were inferior to those already found or projected along the device lifetime globally, as reported in the most recent Company Product Performance Report (0.72% for Prizm and 1.83% for Renewal). Conclusions: In absence of underestimation of the events, a lower incidence than expected could resize the dimension of the problem, justifying the concept of a more frequent follow-up of patient with respect to the choice of an immediate device explant.

KW - advisories

KW - device failure

KW - implantable cardioverter defibrillator

KW - risk analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051695534&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051695534&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03083.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03083.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21438897

AN - SCOPUS:80051695534

VL - 34

SP - 998

EP - 1002

JO - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 0147-8389

IS - 8

ER -