ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Early Experience with the Biotronik Protego ICD Lead.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the last decade, newer generation ICD leads have been developed based on mechanistic insides of priorly failing leads. The aim of our study was to assess the long-term performance and mechanisms of failure of the 2013-introduced Biotronik Protego ICD lead in a real-world population. Methods: All patients, who underwent implantation of a Protego ICD lead at the Heart Centre Lucerne (Lucerne, Switzerland) between November 2013 and March 2017, were followed up with semi-annual device-controls. The primary endpoint was defined as lead failure, secondary endpoints compromised all-cause death, (in)appropriate shocks and the need for reintervention. Results: A total of 64 patients (mean age 66.7 ± 8.7 years, 30% female) underwent implantation of a Protego ICD lead: 78% for primary prevention, 53% had underlying ischemic heart disease, and 40.6% had a dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 32.6 ± 10.5%. A total of 24 patients were treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and their baseline LVEF improved from 27.8 ± 7.3% before to 39.8 ± 12.5 after implantation (p < 0.001). Mean time to follow-up was 5.5 ± 0.9 years. Overall, 14 patients (26.6%) suffered from at least one episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia; in total 10 patients (15.6%) died. Two patients experienced lead failure due to lead fracture after 5.5 and 5.7 years, which was clinically apparent by an abrupt rise in lead impedance (>2000 Ω) and by repetitive inappropriate shocks, respectively. Conclusions: In this retrospective observational study, the calculated annual lead failure rate of the Biotronik Protego ICD lead was 0.59% per patient—thus, the durability and long-term performance seem to be promising.
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.