Long-Term Mortality After Transvenous Lead Extraction

Trends in Use and Adverse Outcomes Associated with Transvenous Lead Removal in the United States

Background—

Transvenous lead removal (TLR) has made significant progress with respect to innovation, efficacy, and safety. However, limited data exist regarding trends in use and adverse outcomes outside the centers of considerable experience for TLR. The aim of our study was to examine use patterns, frequency of adverse events, and influence of hospital volume on complications.

Methods and Results—

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified 91 890 TLR procedures. We investigated common complications including pericardial complications (hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or pericardiocentesis), pneumothorax, stroke, vascular complications (consisting of hemorrhage/hematoma, incidents requiring surgical repair, and accidental arterial puncture), and in-hospital deaths described with TLR, defining them by the validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code. We specifically assessed in-hospital death (2.2%), hemorrhage requiring transfusion (2.6%), vascular complications (2.0%), pericardial complications (1.4%), open heart surgery (0.2%), and postoperative respiratory failure (2.4%). Independent predictors of complications were female sex and device infections. Hospital volume was not independently associated with higher complications. There was a significant rise in overall complication rates over the study period.

Conclusions—

The overall complication rate in patients undergoing TLR was higher than previously reported. Female sex and device infections are associated with higher complications. Hospital volume was not associated with higher complication rates. The number of adverse events in the literature likely underestimates the actual number of complications associated with TLR.

Initial experience with the TightRail™ Rotating Mechanical Dilator Sheath for transvenous lead extraction

AIMS

In parallel with increasing implantation rates and patients' longer life expectancy, the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) as a specialized procedure has shown a significant growth over years. Herein, we aimed to present our initial experience in TLE by using a novel TightRail™ Rotating Mechanical Dilator Sheath.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between October 2014 and March 2015, a total of 42 leads in 23 patients were removed at our tertiary referral centre. All of the extracted leads were >12 months old and indications for extraction were based on the recommendations of the Heart Rhythm Society. The leads were removed by using the TightRail™ Mechanical Dilator Sheath (Spectranetics Corporation) with the rotational cutting force only. Indications for lead removal included cardiac device infection in 12 (52.2%) cases, lead malfunction in the 10 (43.5%) cases, and upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) in the remaining 1 case (4.3%). The extracted devices were pacemaker in 10 (43.4%) cases, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in 7 (30.4%) cases, and CRT in the remaining 6 (26.0%) subjects. Among 42 leads, 10 (23.8%) were right ventricular, 14 (33.3%) were atrial, 13 (31.0%) were defibrilator, and 5 (11.9%) were coronary sinus electrodes. The median time from implantation was 72 (18-216) months. Complete procedural success with TightRail™ system alone was achieved in 22 (95.7%) patients (41/42 leads) and overall clinical success was 100%. One right ventricular lead was completely removed with the help of femoral snare. All the patients were discharged uneventfully without any complication.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary data with small sample size show that TightRail™ Mechanical Dilator Sheath is a new useful tool for chronically implanted pacemaker (PM)/ICD leads. Continued investigation including large patient cohort is required to evaluate success and complication rates in comparison to other tools and techniques.

Outcomes and Complications of Lead Removal: Can We Establish a Risk Stratification Schema for a Collaborative and Effective Approach?

BACKGROUND

Removal of an entire cardiovascular implantable electronic device is associated with morbidity and mortality. We sought to establish a risk classification scheme according to the outcomes of transvenous lead removal in a single center, with the goal of using that scheme to guide electrophysiology lab versus operating room extraction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing transvenous lead removal from January 2001 to October 2012 at Mayo Clinic were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,378 leads were removed from 652 (age 64 ± 17 years, M 68%) patients undergoing 702 procedures. Mean (standard deviation) lead age was 57.6 (58.8) months. Forty-four percent of leads required laser-assisted extraction. Lead duration (P < 0.001) and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead (P < 0.001) were associated with the need for laser extraction and procedure failure (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.02). The major complication rate was 1.9% and was significantly associated with longer lead duration (odds ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.3; P < 0.001). High-risk patients (with a >10-year-old pacing or a >5-year-old ICD lead) had significantly higher major events than moderate-risk (with pacing lead 1-10 years old or ICD lead 1-5 years old) and low-risk (any lead ≤1-year-old) patients (5.3%, 1.2%, and 0%, respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Transvenous lead removal is highly successful, with few serious procedural complications. We propose a risk stratification scheme that may categorize patients as low, moderate, and high risk for lead extraction. Such a strategy may guide which extractions are best performed in the operating room.

Extraction of sterile leads is the preferred approach rather than implanting a new lead: the con perspective

Lead malfunction is a common problem in implantable cardiac device patients and is expected to increase with the aging of leads. There is a weak indication for extraction of superfluous leads with the potential for cardiac implantable electronic device interference and abandoned or redundant leads; much remains to be learned from clinical practice. Lead extraction, although safe in experienced hands, remains a high-risk procedure, especially in lower-volume centers and/or when performed by lower-volume operators. Therefore, a strategy of abandoning nonfunctioning leads is reasonable, and lead extractions should be reserved for cases with system infection or high lead burden.

Early diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device generator pocket infection using ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT

AIMS

To examine the utility of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) in the early diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) generator pocket infection.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 86 patients with CIEDs were evaluated with (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging: 46 with suspected generator pocket infection and 40 without any history of infection. (18)F-FDG activity in the region of the generator pocket was expressed as a semi-quantitative ratio (SQR)-defined as the maximum count rate around the CIED divided by the mean count rate between normal right and left lung parenchyma. All patients underwent standard clinical management, independent of the PET/CT result. Patients with suspected generator pocket infection that required CIED extraction (n = 32) had significantly higher (18)F-FDG activity compared with those that did not (n = 14), and compared with controls (n = 40) [SQR: 4.80 (3.18-7.05) vs. 1.40 (0.88-1.73) vs. 1.10 (0.98-1.40), respectively; P < 0.001]. On receiver operator characteristic analysis, SQR had a high diagnostic accuracy (area under curve = 0.98) for the early identification of patients with confirmed infection (i.e. those ultimately needing extraction)-with an optimal SQR cut-off value of >2.0 (sensitivity = 97%; specificity = 98%).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the potential benefits of evaluating patients with suspected CIED generator pocket infection using (18)F-FDG PET/CT. In this study, (18)F-FDG PET/CT had a high diagnostic accuracy in the early diagnosis of CIED generator pocket infection, even where initial clinical signs were underwhelming.

Safety of transvenous lead extraction according to centre volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex invasive procedure and the experience of the operator and the team is a major determinant of procedural outcomes.

AIM

Because of very limited data available on minimum procedural volumes to enable training and ongoing competency for TLEs, we performed a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the outcomes of TLE in the centres with low, medium, and high volume of procedures.

METHODS

Of the 280 papers initially retrieved until February 2013, 66 observational studies met inclusion criteria and were included in at least one stratified meta-analysis: 17 were prospective studies; 47 had a retrospective design; and 2 were defined 'experience studies'. We included only articles published after the introduction of laser technique (year 1999). We divided the studies in low, medium, and high volume centres utilizing either the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) or Lexicon classification criteria.

RESULTS

When meta-analyses were carried out separately for the studies with larger and smaller sample sizes, either using EHRA or Lexicon classification criteria, no clear differences emerged in the combined rate of major complications or intraoperative deaths. In contrast, both minor complications and mortality at 30 days decreased as centre volume increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In our meta-analysis of observational studies, patients who have been treated in higher volume centres have a lower probability of minor complications and death at 30 days regardless of the infection rate, length of lead duration, type of device, and type of extraction.

Extraction of chronically implanted cardiovascular electronic device leads

OPINION STATEMENT

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are a remarkable success story. These systems are widely used to prevent symptomatic bradycardia, treat malignant tachyarrhythmia, and to restore a more physiologic contraction to a failing left ventricle. Implantation of a CIED usually involves a lifelong commitment to this therapy, which, unfortunately, is not free from complication requiring removal and/or replacement of all or part of the system. The major obstacle to removal of a CIED is the fibrous attachments that develop between a lead and co-existent leads, veins, and the heart. This process increases over time such that, by one year, removal by traction alone may be problematic and, if aggressive, result in complication. Physicians, surgeons, and engineers have refined techniques of percutaneous lead extraction and developed tools, which have facilitated the process, increased success, and lowered the incidence of complication. Extraction may be performed for a variety of indications some of which are unanimously agreed upon while others remain controversial. Proponents of a broadened application of extraction have proffered the concept of 'lead management,' which includes the removal of all leads that are not clinically relevant to the patient. The benefit of this approach would be to limit the risk of future complication, such as venous occlusion or thromboembolism, and to obviate the increase in difficulty of extraction (due to longer implant duration) that might accompany removal should that be required in the future. Intuitively appealing as this approach might be, there is little evidence supporting it, and the extraordinarily large number of patients currently implanted with recalled ICD leads is indicative of the potential impact this practice may have. This review will discuss extraction, its indications, and outcomes.

Rescue transoesophageal echocardiography for refractory haemodynamic instability during transvenous lead extraction

AIMS

The rising number of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices has led to a steep increase in transvenous lead extractions (TLEs). Procedure-related, haemodynamically significant adverse events are uncommon during TLE yet remain an inevitable risk. While the use of transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) as a guide to clinical decision-making during refractory circulatory instability has been well established, the specific utility of rescue TEE during TLE has not been comprehensively studied.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-six patients who required emergent TEE to determine the aetiology of intractable haemodynamic instability during TLE were evaluated. Pericardial effusion requiring urgent pericardiocentesis and/or cardiac surgical intervention was diagnosed by TEE in 10 patients, and progressed to cardiac arrest in 4 patients. Haemorrhagic shock developed in two patients suffering from femoral vein laceration and right haemothorax, respectively. One additional patient developed acute respiratory compromise and right ventricular dysfunction diagnosed by TEE, which necessitated prolonged post-operative intubation and inotropic therapy. In 14 patients, TEE excluded life-threatening cardiovascular injuries and enabled the pursuit of continued medical management. Two patients with reassuring TEE findings underwent intra-operative placement of chest tubes for pneumothorax. All the 26 patients were discharged from the hospital.

CONCLUSION

While TLE is a relatively safe procedure, life-threatening cardiovascular injuries remain a rare risk. In this study, the use of rescue TEE ruled out significant cardiovascular injuries in the majority of patients. Furthermore, rescue TEE had a substantial impact on the efficiency of determining the aetiology of refractory haemodynamic instability during TLE and thereby facilitated the timely initiation of definitive intervention.

Survival of patients with biventricular devices after device infection, extraction, and reimplantation

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare outcomes in patients with biventricular device infections who undergo successful treatment including extraction and reimplantation to patients with biventricular devices never known to become infected.

BACKGROUND

Infection of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Survival in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device infections undergoing full system extraction is unknown.

METHODS

We extracted data on all patients undergoing extraction of a biventricular pacing device for an infectious indication at the Cleveland Clinic between February 16, 2000, and June 30, 2011. Survival of patients who presented with a CRT device infection, extraction, and successful reimplantation was compared to that of a large cohort of consecutive patients undergoing initial CRT implantation without a known history of subsequent device-related infection. In addition, long-term outcomes were compared between patients who were extracted and deemed to be cured with and without successful biventricular device reimplantation.

RESULTS

In all, 151 patients underwent biventricular device extraction for infection, of whom 81 were successfully reimplanted. The noninfected cohort consisted of 879 patients. In a multivariate Cox regression model controlling for sex, a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy, creatinine, hemoglobin, beta-blocker use, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use, and diuretic use, no significant association between subsequent infection with reimplantation and all-cause mortality was noted (p = 0.21). There was a trend toward worse outcomes for patients extracted, deemed cured, and not reimplanted compared to patients with successful CRT reimplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a biventricular device infection who are successfully extracted, treated with antibiotics, and reimplanted with a biventricular device have outcomes similar to those of patients with biventricular devices not known to have become infected.

Arteriovenous fistula formation after lead extraction

The junction between the left brachiocephalic vein and the superior vena cava is a high-risk region during lead extraction. Venous laceration with hemodynamic collapse is the most feared complication arising in this region, but arteriovenous fistula formation after excimer laser extraction also has been reported. A case of arteriovenous fistula presenting 3 days after extraction with acute pulmonary edema is described. A continuous murmur was heard near the extraction site and invasive angiography demonstrated a left internal mammary artery to the brachiocephalic vein fistula, which was coiled. A new continuous murmur after lead extraction is the hallmark of this rare complication.

Current treatment of ventricular arrhythmias: state of the art

Ventricular arrhythmias may be benign, requiring only evaluation for associated risks and then reassurance, or associated with a risk of sudden death or significant morbidity. Therapies for these arrhythmias have evolved considerably over the past 20 years. For some, a definitive, curative therapy is available in the form of catheter ablation. Others are best managed with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator that provides effective arrhythmia termination and protection from sudden death, with antiarrhythmic drugs or ablation to control recurrent arrhythmias. Although progress has been substantial, many challenges remain.

Complications of cardiac implants: handling device infections

Managing patients with cardiac implantable electrophysiological devices (CIED) infections can be challenging. The first step should be prevention, which involves patient selection, timing of implantation, and the procedure itself. After implantation, a high degree of suspicion should be applied in order to correctly diagnose patients with infected implanted devices. It is necessary to recognize that patients can present with a wide variety of signs and symptoms. Once diagnosed, the next step is determining if it is a local pocket infection or system infection. In almost every patient, in addition to antibiotics, complete removal of ALL hardware is required. Transvenous lead extraction is now safe and effective, but should only be performed at experienced centres with a practiced extraction team, all possible needed equipment, and cardiothoracic surgical backup. After extraction, the indication for CIED therapy should be re-evaluated to determine re-implantation is warranted. Timing of re-implantation depends on a variety of factors such as type of infection or valvular involvement and should be made in concordance with an infectious disease specialist. This review is aimed at introducing the steps needed to manage patients with infected cardiac devices.