Comparison of Sprint Fidelis and Riata defibrillator lead failure rates

Background/objectivesSprint Fidelis and Riata defibrillator leads are prone to early failure. Few data exist on the comparative failure rates and mortality related to lead failure. The aims of this study were to determine the failure rate of Sprint Fidelis and Riata leads, and to compare failure rates and mortality rates in both groups.MethodsPatients implanted with Sprint Fidelis leads and Riata leads at a single centre were identified and in July 2012, records were reviewed to ascertain lead failures, deaths, and relationship to device/lead problems.Results113 patients had Sprint Fidelis leads implanted between June 2005 and September 2007; Riata leads were implanted in 106 patients between January 2003 and February 2008. During 53.0 ± 22.3 months of follow-up there were 13 Sprint Fidelis lead failures (11.5%, 2.60% per year) and 25 deaths. Mean time to failure was 45.1 ± 15.5 months. In the Riata lead cohort there were 32 deaths, and 13 lead failures (11.3%, 2.71% per year) over 54.8 ± 26.3 months follow-up with a mean time to failure of 53.5 ± 24.5 months. There were no significant differences in the lead failure-free Kaplan-Meier survival curve (p = 0.77), deaths overall (p = 0.17), or deaths categorised as sudden/cause unknown (p = 0.54).ConclusionsSprint Fidelis and Riata leads have a significant but comparable failure rate at 2.60% per year and 2.71% per year of follow-up respectively. The number of deaths in both groups is similar and no deaths have been identified as being related to lead failure in either cohort.