New study on longevity finds that Medtronic ICDs are superior.

From time to time the question of who makes the best ICD comes around (even if I’m the one bringing it up). But since there are few comparative studies among ICDs of different manufacturers, the answer is not an easy one.

Luckily, a study published by Europace late last year (Longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: implications for clinical practice and health care systems) helps shed some light on the topic of longevity.

A team of doctors in Bologna, Italy, looked into the longevity of Medtronic, Guidant and St. Jude Medical devices implanted from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2002, a 3 year period.

They found that, under comparable conditions, Medtronic ICDs outlasted Guidant and St. Jude Medical devices, with replacement rates being, respectively, 42%, 95.3%, and 97.2%.

At the end of the follow-up period (12/31/07), 56 of 57 (97.2%) St. Jude Medical, 41 of 43 (95.3%) Guidant, and 10 of 24 (42%) Medtronic devices had been replaced. Among these 124 patients, 17 still had the device in service: 11 single-chamber ICDs (8 MDT, 2 GDT, 1 SJM), 2 dual-chamber ICDs (MDT), and 4 CRT-D (MDT).

At the time the study was done, St. Jude Medical and Guidant used Wilson Greatbatch batteries, while Medtronic devices had their own proprietary batteries.

Device longevity is a big deal to us, patients, since it translates into fewer replacements and a lower risk of complications. Longevity also has a significant impact on the cost per service life of an ICD. In other words, the up-front cost of a device is of limited value when estimating its long-term cost-effectiveness.

From a total of 153 patients:

• 80 received a single chamber ICD (1 lead)
• 59 received a dual-chamber ICD (2 leads)
• 14 received CRT-D devices (3 leads)

The bottom line? Medtronic ICDs last longer.

But I do have to wonder if the newer Boston Scientific devices COGNIS and TELIGEN with proprietary battery technology would have given the Medtronic devices a run for their money.