The longevity of defibrillators (ICD) is extremely important from both a clinical and economic perspective. We studied the reasons for device replacement, the longevity of removed ICD, and the existence of possible factors associated with shorter service life.Methods and Results:
Consecutive patients who underwent ICD replacement from March 2013 to May 2015 in 36 Italian centers were included in this analysis. Data on replaced devices were collected. A total of 953 patients were included in this analysis. In 813 (85%) patients the reason for replacement was battery depletion, while 88 (9%) devices were removed for clinical reasons and the remaining 52 because of system failure (i.e., lead or ICD generator failure or a safety advisory indication). The median service life was 5.9 years (25th–75th percentile, 4.9–6.9) for single- and dual-chamber ICD and 4.9 years (25th–75th percentile, 4.0–5.7) for CRT-D. On multivariate analysis, the factors CRT-D device, SC/DC ICD generator from Biotronik, percentage of ventricular pacing, and the occurrence of a system failure were positively associated with a replacement procedure. By contrast, the device from Boston Scientific was an independent protective factor against replacement. Considerable differences were seen in battery duration in both ICD and CRT-D. Specifically, Biotronik devices showed the shortest longevity among ICD and Boston Scientific showed the longest longevity among CRT-D (log-rank test, P < 0.001 for pairwise comparisons).Conclusion:
Several factors were associated with shorter service life of ICD devices: CRT-D, occurrence of system failure and percentage of ventricular pacing. Our results confirmed significant differences among manufacturers.