Clinical performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead monitoring diagnostics

Jeanne E Poole, Charles D Swerdlow, Khaldoun G Tarakji, Suneet Mittal, Kenneth A Ellenbogen, Arnold J Greenspon, Charles Kennergren, Berit T Philbert, JoEllyn Moore, R Chris Jones, Robert D Schaller, Riple Hansalia, Timothy Simmers, Attila Mihalcz, Becky DeBus, Daniel R Lexcen, Bruce Gunderson, Bruce L Wilkoff

Research output: Journal article (peer-reviewed)Journal article

4 Citations (Scopus)


BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead monitoring diagnostic alerts facilitate the diagnosis of structural lead failure.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively study the performance of Medtronic ICD lead monitoring alerts.

METHODS: A prespecified ancillary substudy, World-Wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial, was conducted in patients with an ICD with all available alerts enabled. The investigators reported possible lead system events (LSEs), with or without an alert. An independent committee reviewed all data and classified events as lead failure, other LSE, or nonlead system events (NLEs).

RESULTS: In 4942 patients who were followed for 19.4 ± 8.7 months, there were 124 alerts (65 LSEs, 59 NLEs) and 19 LSEs without an alert. Lead monitoring alerts had 100% sensitivity for the 48 adjudicated lead failures (95% confidence interval 92.6%-100%) and for 10 events adjudicated as either lead failure or connection issue. The positive predictive value of alerts for lead failure was 38.7% (48 of 124). For 34 pace-sense lead failures, an alert that incorporated oversensing was more sensitive than the pacing impedance threshold alert (33 patients [97.1%] vs 9 patients [26.5%]; P < .0001). However, the sensitivity was only 13.6% for lead dislodgments or perforations. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 2 patients with pace-sense lead failure (5.9%). No patient had unnecessary lead replacement for any of the NLEs.

CONCLUSION: In this first real-world prospective study, lead monitoring alerts had 100% sensitivity for identifying lead failures. Although their positive predictive value was modest, no false-positive alerts resulted in an unnecessary lead replacement. For the diagnosis of pace-sense lead failure, an alert for oversensing was more sensitive than a pacing impedance threshold alert.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: identifier: NCT02277990.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)363-371
Number of pages9
JournalHeart Rhythm
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2022


  • Defibrillators, Implantable/adverse effects
  • Electric Impedance
  • Equipment Failure
  • Humans
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Prospective Studies
  • Lead monitoring
  • Lead failure
  • Remote monitoring
  • Defibrillator
  • Ventricular tachycardi

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)


Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead monitoring diagnostics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this