Triple lead cephalic versus subclavian vein approach in cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation is associated with severe complications including pneumo- and hemothorax. Data on a sole cephalic vein approach (sCV), potentially preventing these complications, are limited. The aim of our study was to compare a sole cSV with a subclavian vein approach (SV) in CRT implantations with respect to feasibility and safety. We performed a prospective cohort study enrolling twenty-four consecutive de-novo CRT implantations (group A) using a sCV at two centers. Fifty-four age-matched CRT patients implanted via the SV served (group B) as reference. Procedural success rate and complications were recorded during a follow-up of 4 weeks. All CRTs could be implanted in group A, with 91.7% using cephalic access alone. In group B, CRT implantation was successfully performed in 96.3%. Procedure and fluoroscopy duration were similar for both groups (sCV vs. SV: 119 ± 45 vs. 106 ± 31 minutes, 17 ± 9 vs 14 ± 9 minutes). Radiation dosage was higher in sCV group vs. SV (2984 ± 2370 vs. 1580 ± 1316 cGy*cm²; p = 0.001). There was no case of a pneumothorax in group of sCV, while two cases were observed using SV. Overall complication rate was similar (sCV: 13.0% vs. SV: 12.5%). de-novo CRT implantation using a triple cephalic vein approach is feasible. Procedure duration and complication rates were similar, while radiation dosage was higher in the sCV compared to the SV approach. Despite its feasibility in the clinical routine, controlled prospective studies with longer follow-up are required to elucidate a potential benefit with respect to lead longevity.

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator as a bridge to reimplantation in patients with ICD or CRT-D-related infections

Background

The approach to treat device infection in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) is a challenging procedure. Optimal treatment is complete extraction of the infected device. To protect these patients from sudden cardiac arrest while waiting for reimplantation and to avoid recurrent infection, a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) seems to be a valuable solution.

Therefore, we investigated the management and outcome of patients with ICD or CRT-D infections using the WCD as a bridge to re-implantation after lead extraction procedures.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients who underwent ICD or CRT-D removal due to device-related local or systemic infections. All patients were prescribed a WCD at our center between 01/2012 and 10/2015. All patients returned to our outpatient clinic for regular ICD or CRT-D monitoring initially 1 and 3 months after reimplantation followed by 6-months intervals.

Results

Twenty-one patients (mean age 65.0 ± 8.0 years, male 76.2%) were included in the study. Complete lead extraction was achieved in all patients. While waiting for reimplantation one patient experienced a symptomatic episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia. This episode was converted successfully into sinus rhythm by a single 150 J shock.

Mean follow-up time 392 ± 206 days, showing survival rate of 100% and freedom from reinfection in all patients.

Conclusion

The WCD seems to be a valuable bridging option for patients with ICD or CRT-D infections, showing no recurrent device infection.