Batterielaufzeiten implantierbarer Kardioverter-Defibrillatoren

Eine retrospektive Analyse an der Universitätsmedizin Göttingen

Battery longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

A retrospective analysis at the University Medical Center Göttingen

by Matthias Lueken
Doctoral thesis
Date of Examination:2022-02-01
Date of issue:2022-01-14
Advisor:Prof. Dr. Markus Zabel
Referee:PD Dr. Ulrich Krause
Referee:Prof. Dr. Margarete Schön
Persistent Address: http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-9041

 

 

Files in this item

Name:eDiss_Batterielaufzeiten_implantierbarer_Kar...pdf
Size:835.Kb
Format:PDF
Description:Batterielaufzeiten implantierbarer Kardioverter-Defibrillatoren - Eine retrospektive Analyse an der Universitätsmedizin Göttingen

The following license files are associated with this item:

Abstract

English

Due to the expanded indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in the prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death, more and more ICDs are being implanted. The unit changes that are often necessary in this context are associated with considerable risks for patients and costs for the healthcare system. A large proportion of the replacement operations are due to battery failure. The present study therefore investigated potential factors influencing battery life of ICDs. It was a monocentric, retrospective, statistical analysis of all patients who had an ICD implanted at the Universal Medical Center Göttingen between March 1987 and October 2010. Data on 2408 ICDs were collected. Using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses, the battery life of the ICDs and their influencing factors were investigated. This revealed significant battery life differences with respect to ICD manufacturers and chamber types. Single- and dual-chamber devices from Medtronic showed longer battery life than devices from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. ICDs with a high pacing percentage and many delivered shocks, as well as cardiac resynchronization therapy plus defibrillator (CRT-D) devices, were significantly associated with a higher risk of battery depletion. Newer ICD generations showed longer battery life than older generations. In addition, real-world device longevity was shorter than battery longevity, as expected. In summary, the battery life of ICDs does not appear to be sufficient. The differences in battery life between different manufacturers should be taken into account during implantation. In addition, the influencing factors associated with shorter battery life, such as the number of delivered shocks and the average pacing percentage, should be kept as low as possible. Further clinical research to evaluate factors influencing the battery life of ICDs appears to be just as necessary as the development of longer-lasting batteries.
Keywords: ICD; longevity
Schlagwörter: ICD; Batterielaufzeiten
 
Statistik