ArticleESC heart failure2026
Lead replacement due to non-infectious reasons in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy in long-term follow-up.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for patients with heart failure.
objectiveThe study aimed to determine the long-term durability of CRT leads, factors predisposing to lead replacement, and the outcomes of lead replacement in CRT patients.
methodsThe study population comprised 1059 consecutive patients who received conventional CRT implants at a university hospital between 2002 and 2019.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 1661 days (interquartile range: 815-2792), a total of 324 leads were replaced in 251 patients (23.7%) for non-infectious reasons. The overall crude incidence of lead replacement was 19.4 events per 1000 lead-years. Of those who required lead replacement, 126 subjects (50.2%) underwent the procedure within the first year after CRT implantation. Among patients followed for more than 10 years (n = 143; 13.5%), 67 subjects (46.8%) had one or more lead replacements. Duration of the index CRT procedure and fluoroscopy time were independent predictors of lead replacement in a multivariable analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.06, P = .02 and HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.15, P = .01, respectively]. The leads that required replacement were left ventricular (11.2%), right ventricular (10.8%), and right atrial (4%), corresponding to approximate rates of 21.4, 20.5, and 7.6 replacements per 1000 lead-years, respectively. Compared with no need for re-intervention, lead-related re-do procedures were not associated with overall long-term mortality (55.3% vs 51%, P = .3) or the incidence of device-related infective endocarditis (5.6% vs 4.5%, P = .82).
conclusionsAlmost 25% of patients with CRT require lead replacement during long-term follow-up for non-infectious reasons, and half of those require replacement within the first year. Over 10 years, nearly every second patient requires a lead-related redo procedure. Lead replacement was not associated with long-term all-cause mortality. Systematic proficiency-based training should be introduced as a routine strategy in the education of novice implanters.
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.