Failure rates of leads, pulse generators, and programmers have not diminished over the last 20 years: formal monitoring of performance is still needed. BILITCH Registry and STIMAREC.
Formal Monitoring of Performance is Still Needed. In order to detect trends in the number of device or component failures that have occurred among permanent pacemaker systems since the 1970s, we reviewed the data of the five largest pacemaker manufacturers from the Bilitch Registry of permanent pacemaker pulse generators, the Stimarec failure registry, the general accounting office summaries of the United States Veterans Administration (VA) Registry of Pacemaker Leads, and the Implantable Lead Registry, from the Cleveland Clinic Lead registry, and the recalls and safety alerts issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the last 20 years. The definition of failure followed the criterion, or criteria, developed within each registry and differed significantly between the registries. The 20-year period between 1976 and 1995 was divided into 5-year quartiles (QT): QT 1 = 1976-1980; QT2 = 1981-1985; QT3 = 1986-1990; and QT4 = 1991-1995. For pulse generators, the number of models with failures in each quartile in the Bilitch Registry were: QT 1 = 9; QT 2 = 11; QT3 = 17; QT4 = 13. In Stimarec, the number of units reported as having reached a dangerous condition were: QT1 = 710; QT2 = 212; QT3 = 114; QT4 = 310. From the FDA reports, the number of units included in recalls or safety alerts were: QT3 = 6,085; QT4 = 135,766. For permanent pacemaker leads, the numbers of failed or dangerous leads recorded in Stimarec were: QT3 = 16; QT4 = 32. In the VA Registry, the number of models having a below average survival was 2/92 (2.7%). In the Implantable Lead Registry, the number of models having a below average survival was 3/21 (14%). In the Cleveland Clinic series, 6/13 (46%) of lead models were recognized to have some failure involving the conductor, insulation, or connector. In the FDA reports, the number of leads involved in either recall or safety alert were: QT3 = 20,354; QT4 = 332,105. For programmers, the number of units involved either in a recall or safety alert were: QT3 = 11,124; QT4 = 3,528. In all of these series, each of the five largest manufacturers had some models or units involved in each time period. This review of programs has revealed: 1. The incidence of failures, recalls, or safety alerts did not decline over time; and 2. Despite changes in technology, formal monitoring of pacemaker systems is still warranted.
Kawanishi
D T
DT
University of Southern California Pacemaker Center, Los Angeles 221-4428, USA.
Song
S
S
Furman
S
S
Parsonnet
V
V
Pioger
G
G
Petitot
J C
JC
Godin
J F
JF
D011211:Electric Power Supplies; D004567:Electrodes, Implanted; D004868:Equipment Failure; D004869:Equipment Safety; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007256:Information Systems; D013677:Medical Laboratory Science; D009820:Ohio; D010138:Pacemaker, Artificial; D011358:Product Surveillance, Postmarketing / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends; D012042:Registries / Q000145:classification; D012984:Software; D013997:Time Factors; D014481:United States; D014493:United States Department of Veterans Affairs; D014486:United States Food and Drug Administration / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence