Advancements in BATTERY longevity of cardiac implantable electronic devices from real-world data: BATTERY study

IF 2.2 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS

Journal of Arrhythmia Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1002/joa3.70041

Maiko Kuroda MD, Michio Nagashima MD, Masataka Narita MD, Wataru Sasaki MD, Naomichi Tanaka MD, PhD, Kazuhisa Matsumoto MD, PhD, Tsukasa Naganuma MD, Hitoshi Mori MD, PhD, Yoshifumi Ikeda MD, PhD, Kengo Korai MD, Masato Fukunaga MD, Kenichi Hiroshima MD, Kenji Ando MD, Ritsushi Kato MD, PhD

{"title":"Advancements in BATTERY longevity of cardiac implantable electronic devices from real-world data: BATTERY study","authors":"Maiko Kuroda MD, Michio Nagashima MD, Masataka Narita MD, Wataru Sasaki MD, Naomichi Tanaka MD, PhD, Kazuhisa Matsumoto MD, PhD, Tsukasa Naganuma MD, Hitoshi Mori MD, PhD, Yoshifumi Ikeda MD, PhD, Kengo Korai MD, Masato Fukunaga MD, Kenichi Hiroshima MD, Kenji Ando MD, Ritsushi Kato MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/joa3.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Technological development has improved the battery longevity of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, there have been no reports on the extent of the improvement in battery longevity in the real world.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients who underwent CIED exchanges from February 2006 to June 2023 were included in this study. The actual battery longevity calculated from the implantation date to the battery replacement date and the predicted battery longevity based on manufacturer reports were investigated. All patients were divided into five groups according to their initial implantation dates. After excluding the first and last groups, the data among the middle three groups (P1, P2, P3) were compared.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 3119 patients (pacemakers [PMs], 2138; ICDs, 477; cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers [CRTPs], 121; cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators [CRTDs], 383) were enrolled in this study. The predicted device longevity improved over time for all devices, but in recent analyses, it has been overestimated compared to the actual device longevity for PMs, ICDs, and CRTPs. The actual device longevity of PMs, ICDs, and CRTDs exhibited an extension in the early two periods (P1 vs. P2), but no extension was observed in the most recent two periods (P2 vs. P3). CRTPs showed no improvement in any of the periods.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The battery longevity has improved by only about 1 year over the past nearly 15 years. Moreover, the discrepancy between the predicted and actual battery longevity suggests that a reevaluation of the methods for calculating the predicted battery longevity may be necessary.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arrhythmia","volume":"41 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.70041","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arrhythmia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.70041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Technological development has improved the battery longevity of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, there have been no reports on the extent of the improvement in battery longevity in the real world.

Methods

Patients who underwent CIED exchanges from February 2006 to June 2023 were included in this study. The actual battery longevity calculated from the implantation date to the battery replacement date and the predicted battery longevity based on manufacturer reports were investigated. All patients were divided into five groups according to their initial implantation dates. After excluding the first and last groups, the data among the middle three groups (P1, P2, P3) were compared.

Results

A total of 3119 patients (pacemakers [PMs], 2138; ICDs, 477; cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers [CRTPs], 121; cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators [CRTDs], 383) were enrolled in this study. The predicted device longevity improved over time for all devices, but in recent analyses, it has been overestimated compared to the actual device longevity for PMs, ICDs, and CRTPs. The actual device longevity of PMs, ICDs, and CRTDs exhibited an extension in the early two periods (P1 vs. P2), but no extension was observed in the most recent two periods (P2 vs. P3). CRTPs showed no improvement in any of the periods.

Conclusion

The battery longevity has improved by only about 1 year over the past nearly 15 years. Moreover, the discrepancy between the predicted and actual battery longevity suggests that a reevaluation of the methods for calculating the predicted battery longevity may be necessary.

Abstract Image