ArticleClinical cardiology2017
"Real life" longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Worldwide data analysis of BIOTRONIK ICD and CRT-D battery longevity.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Battery Longevity in Modern Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy-Defibrillators.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- "Real-world" analysis of battery longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: an in-depth analysis of a prospective defibrillator database.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Hybrid Cathode Lithium Battery Discharge Simulation for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Using a Coupled Electro-Thermal Dynamic Model.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2023Article
- An in-silico assessment of efficacy of two novel intra-cardiac electrode configurations versus traditional anti-tachycardia pacing therapy for terminating sustained ventricular tachycardia.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- How to get the optimal defibrillation lead parameters using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in patients with coronary artery disease.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- First Demonstration of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillator Service Life Exceeding Patient Survival in a Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Cohort.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2020Article
- Favorable Trend of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Service Life in a Large Single-Nation Population: Insights From 10-Year Analysis of the Italian Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
- Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Permanent Pacemakers: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2018Review
- Cardiac implantable electronic device lead extraction using the lead-locking device system: keeping it simple, safe, and inexpensive with mechanical tools and local anesthesia.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2017Observational
- "Real life" longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices.Clinical cardiology · 2017Article
- Do all patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator need a generator change? A health service evaluation of patients who underwent generator changes from a single tertiary center.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManufacturers of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) promise a 5- to 9-year projected longevity; however, real-life data indicate otherwise. The aim of the present study was to assess ICD longevity among 685 consecutive patients over the last 20 years. HYPOTHESIS: Real-life longevity of ICDs may differ from that stated by the manufacturers.
methodsThe study included 601 men and 84 women (mean age, 63.1 ± 13.3 years). The underlying disease was coronary (n = 396) or valvular (n = 15) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 220), or electrical disease (n = 54). The mean ejection fraction was 35%. Devices were implanted for secondary (n = 562) or primary (n = 123) prevention. Single- (n = 292) or dual-chamber (n = 269) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices (n = 124) were implanted in the abdomen (n = 17) or chest (n = 668).
resultsOver 20 years, ICD pulse generator replacements were performed in 238 patients (209 men; age 63.7 ± 13.9 years; ejection fraction, 37.7% ± 14.0%) who had an ICD for secondary (n = 210) or primary (n = 28) prevention. The mean ICD longevity was 58.3 ± 18.7 months. In 20 (8.4%) patients, devices exhibited premature battery depletion within 36 months. Most (94%) patients had none, minor, or modest use of ICD therapy. Longevity was longest for single-chamber devices and shortest for CRT devices. Latest-generation devices replaced over the second decade lasted longer compared with devices replaced during the first decade. When analyzed by manufacturer, Medtronic devices appeared to have longer longevity by 13 to 18 months.
conclusionsICDs continue to have limited longevity of 4.9 ± 1.6 years, and 8% demonstrate premature battery depletion by 3 years. CRT devices have the shortest longevity (mean, 3.8 years) by 13 to 17 months, compared with other ICD devices. These findings have important implications, particularly in view of the high expense involved with this type of electrical therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.