Skip to content

Pediatric Lead Extractability and Survival Evaluation (PLEASE)

Pediatric Lead Extractability and Survival Evaluation (PLEASE)Study: A Prospective Assessment of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) Lead Extractability and Survival in Children and Congenital Heart Disease Patients

Status
Terminated
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00335036
Enrollment
748
Registered
2006-06-08
Start date
2006-06-01
Completion date
2009-01-01
Last updated
2026-03-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cardiomyopathy, Congenital Heart Disease, Long QT Syndrome, Ventricular Fibrillation, Ventricular Tachycardia

Keywords

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator, Ventricular Arrhythmia, Sudden Cardiac Death, Congenital Heart Disease, Pediatric Electrophysiology

Brief summary

This is a randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing 2 different types of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads in children and patients with congenital heart disease. ICD lead survival in this patient group is particularly suboptimal, and lead extraction is technically difficult and carries a substantial morbidity risk. Recently, improved ICD lead designs have been released and are currently being utilized in patients. The main aim of the study is to determine if either type of lead performs better in terms of implantation electrical characteristics, long-term survival without breaking, and ease of extractability.

Detailed description

The recognition that ICD therapy in children can be life-saving, as well as the development of smaller devices and leads, are resulting in increased ICD implantation in the pediatric and young adult populations. However, ICD lead survival in this patient group is suboptimal. Lead extraction is technically difficult and has substantial morbidity. Recently, improved ICD lead designs have been released and are currently being utilized. While the development of transvenous ICD leads has allowed for less invasive implantation, the long-term presence of these leads carries some risks. When a lead becomes infected or causes patient morbidity, it must be removed. Because of the larger caliber of ICD leads and the presence of uninsulated shocking coils, non-functional ICD leads usually warrant removal to avoid future mechanical or electrical lead interactions. The larger size of ICD leads is of concern in this younger population, particularly with regard to avoiding the accumulation of implanted hardware. The principal indication for lead revision in children and young adults is lead malfunction, commonly related to patient growth and increased physical activity in this younger population. The removal of chronic indwelling pacer or ICD leads is not trivial. Scar tissue begins to bind transvenous leads to the endothelial surface several weeks after implantation, and this fibrous adherence progresses over time, exacerbated by high-energy shock delivery. In children and younger adult ICD recipients, exuberant lead scarring is prevalent, particularly in the regions of venous entry, high voltage shocking coils, and the lead tip. Transvenous lead extraction has been facilitated by the use of telescoping sheaths and powered sheaths that can be advanced over the lead to disrupt scar tissue and free the lead from the endothelium. The 2 ICD lead types to be compared (thin ICD leads versus ePTFE-coated leads) in the proposed study are at clinical equipoise. Both types are believed to be improved over prior generation ICD leads. However, a direct comparison has not been performed. As the pediatric and congenital heart disease patient subgroup is younger than the average ICD patient population, they will have greater likelihood of long-term survival, and therefore, the issues of lead survival, durability, and extractability are critically important. While these themes are important for all ICD patients, they are particularly germane for younger patients who have more active lifestyles and are, in general, expected to outlive their ICD leads. This study will prospectively assess the improvements in ICD lead design, specifically comparing a Gore ePTFE coating and thinner caliber ICD leads in pediatric and congenital heart disease population. Specific Aim #1: To prospectively evaluate the long-term performance of modern-generation ICD leads in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients. Specific Aim #2: To determine the potential beneficial effects of two improvements in ICD lead design - Gore ePTFE coil coating and thinner lead diameter in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients. Specific Aim #3: To directly compare the safety and efficacy of these new ICD lead technologies in terms of extractability in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients. The primary hypothesis is that improved lead designs and smaller diameter leads will demonstrate benefit in survival and extractability. The primary outcome variables will include: a) ICD lead functionality and performance by subtype, b) inappropriate shocks due to lead issues, c) lead extractability by subtype (Gore-coated versus thin leads). Secondary outcomes include comparison of implant electrical parameters, patient morbidity and mortality, comparing each new lead type with each other and against historical pediatric controls with standard transvenous ICD leads.

Interventions

DEVICEICD lead implant

Randomization of ICD lead type at implant

DEVICEThin leads

Thin (less than or equal to 7 French introducer) isodiametric ICD leads

Sponsors

Charles Berul
Lead SponsorOTHER
Medtronic
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Guidant Corporation
CollaboratorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Masking description

Open label

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
1 Years to 55 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients will be eligible for study enrollment at the time of implantation of a new ICD and transvenous ICD lead. * All patients under the age of 21 years at the time of initial ICD implantation, or those patients with congenital heart disease and an indication for ICD implantation are eligible for participation.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients who have existing ICD leads in place. * Patients with expected survival less than 1 year. * Patients who cannot be expected to participate in follow-up visits. * Patients receiving an epicardial or subcutaneous ICD (without transvenous ICD lead).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
ICD Lead Functionality and Performance by Subtype5 yearsLead survival
Compare Ease of Lead Extractability by Subtype5 yearsExtraction techniques include simple traction (no locking stylet or sheath) and advanced extraction (locking stylet with a sheath). Compared number of extractions using each technique for single and ePTFE-coated coils.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Patients With Major Complications5 yearsMajor complications experienced by patients undergoing lead extraction.
Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks5 yearsComparison of inappropriate shocks between thin leads and PTFE-coated leads.

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORCharles I Berul, MD

Boston Children's Hospital

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Thin Leads
Thin (less than or equal to 7 French introducer) isodiametric ICD leads Thin leads: Thin (less than or equal to 7 French introducer) isodiametric ICD leads
525
Gore PTFE-coated
ICD lead with PTFE-coated coils ICD lead implant: Randomization of ICD lead type at implant
223
Total748

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicGore PTFE-coatedTotalThin Leads
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
112 Participants496 Participants384 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
111 Participants252 Participants141 Participants
Age, Continuous18.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.6
18.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.8
17.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.6
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
223 participants748 participants525 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
103 Participants348 Participants245 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
120 Participants400 Participants280 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 5250 / 223
other
Total, other adverse events
39 / 52514 / 223
serious
Total, serious adverse events
5 / 5251 / 223

Outcome results

Primary

Compare Ease of Lead Extractability by Subtype

Extraction techniques include simple traction (no locking stylet or sheath) and advanced extraction (locking stylet with a sheath). Compared number of extractions using each technique for single and ePTFE-coated coils.

Time frame: 5 years

Population: Intent to compare the ease of extraction of isodiametric ICD leads versus ICD leads with PTFE-coated coils.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Thin LeadsCompare Ease of Lead Extractability by Subtype53 Participants
Gore PTFE-coatedCompare Ease of Lead Extractability by Subtype12 Participants
Primary

ICD Lead Functionality and Performance by Subtype

Lead survival

Time frame: 5 years

Population: Intent to compare the survival of thin leads versus PTFE-coated coils.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Thin LeadsICD Lead Functionality and Performance by Subtype55 percentage of leads to 5 years
Gore PTFE-coatedICD Lead Functionality and Performance by Subtype92 percentage of leads to 5 years
Secondary

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks

Comparison of inappropriate shocks between thin leads and PTFE-coated leads.

Time frame: 5 years

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Thin LeadsComparison of Inappropriate Shocks33 Participants
Gore PTFE-coatedComparison of Inappropriate Shocks13 Participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With Major Complications

Major complications experienced by patients undergoing lead extraction.

Time frame: 5 years

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Thin LeadsNumber of Patients With Major Complications3 Participants
Gore PTFE-coatedNumber of Patients With Major Complications3 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 23, 2026