Abstract
BACKGROUND: Riata and Riata ST leads (St Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA) are prone to failure. There are no independent multicenter reports regarding Riata or Riata ST lead performance.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a retrospective multicenter study of Riata and Riata ST leads that were implanted and followed at 7 centers.
METHODS: The study included adults who received St Jude Medical Riata or Riata ST leads. Data for Quattro Secure leads were obtained from an earlier study.
RESULTS: From 2002 to 2010, 1081 patients received a Riata (n = 774) or Riata ST (n = 307) lead. Follow-up was longer for Riata than Riata ST leads (4.2 ± 2.4 years vs 3.3 ± 1.7 years; P<.0001). During the study, 67 leads failed (6.2%), including 62 of 774 Riata (8.0%) and 5 of 307 Riata ST (1.6%) leads. Forty-seven of 67 lead failures (70.1%) were caused by electrical malfunction, and 20 lead failures (29.9%) were due to externalized conductors (ECs) that were electrically intact. Of 110 leads examined fluoroscopically, ECs were found in 26 of 81 Riata (32%) and 1 of 29 Riata ST (3.4%) leads. Of 26 Riata leads with ECs, 7 (27%) were malfunctioning. Riata leads had lower overall and malfunction free survival compared to Quattro leads (P<.0001), while Riata ST lead survival was not different (P = .422).
CONCLUSIONS: The survival of Riata (but not Riata ST) leads was lower than Quattro leads; however, Riata ST leads had significantly shorter follow-up than Riata leads. ECs were common in Riata leads, and more than a quarter of Riata leads that had ECs were malfunctioning. Our observations suggest that systematic fluoroscopic examination of patients with Riata leads is appropriate.