Management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection using a complete interdisciplinary approach

Efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with and without obesity: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as an alternative to transvenous systems for prevention of sudden cardiac death. However, concerns have been raised regarding its efficacy and safety in obese individuals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the S-ICD in patients with obesity by assessing the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted for English-language peer-reviewed studies reporting clinical outcomes in S-ICD recipients with (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2). Data on preimplantation screening failure, defibrillation testing, complications, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and survival were analyzed using standard, random-effects, meta-analytical techniques.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies involving 20,486 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in mean BMI values of patients with failed or successful preimplantation screening (mean difference -0.60 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.06 to 0.86). Obesity was associated with higher rates of failed defibrillation testing at ≤65 J (odds ratio [OR] 2.16; 95% CI 1.39-3.35), and malpositioning/suboptimal positioning occurred more frequently in obese compared to nonobese patients (OR 3.37; 95% CI 1.76-6.44). Increased BMI as a continuous variable (per increase in 1 kg/m2 BMI) was associated with elevated defibrillation thresholds (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03-1.08); higher risk of complications (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05); a trend toward an increased number of appropriate shocks (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04); and no significant increase in the risk of inappropriate shocks (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.99-1.03).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis underscores the importance of considering obesity in S-ICD implantation decisions. Although S-ICD remains effective in obese patients, attention to potential technical challenges and higher complication rates is warranted.

A head-to-head comparison of laser vs. powered mechanical sheaths as first choice and second line extraction tools

AIMS

During transvenous lead extraction (TLE) longer dwelling time often requires the use of powered sheaths. This study aimed to compare outcomes with the laser and powered mechanical tools.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Single-centre data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Efficacy and safety of the primary extraction tool were compared. Procedures requiring crossover between powered sheaths were also analysed. Moreover, we examined the efficacy of each level of the stepwise approach. Out of 166 patients, 142 (age 65.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent TLE requiring advanced techniques with 245 leads (dwelling time 9.4 ± 6.3 years). Laser sheaths were used in 64.9%, powered mechanical sheaths in 35.1% of the procedures as primary extraction tools. Procedural success rate was 85.5% with laser and 82.5% with mechanical sheaths (P = 0.552). Minor and major complications were observed in similar rate. Procedural mortality occurred only in the laser group in the case of three patients. Crossover was needed in 19.5% after laser and in 12.8% after mechanical extractions (P = 0.187). Among crossover procedures, only clinical success favoured the secondary mechanical arm (87.1 vs. 54.5%, aOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.79, P = 0.030). After step-by-step efficacy analysis, procedural success was 64.9% with the first-line extraction tool, 75.1% after crossover, 84.5% with bailout femoral snare, and 91.8% by non-emergency surgery.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of laser and mechanical sheaths were similar, however in the subgroup of crossover procedures mechanical tools had better performance regarding clinical success. Device diversity seems to help improving outcomes, especially in the most complicated cases.

A 37-Year-Old Woman with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with a Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Requiring Percutaneous Transvenous Lead Extraction and Multidisciplinary Management

Patient: Female, 37-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Symptoms: None

Medication:—

Clinical Procedure: Percutaneous ICD lead extraction • Surgical ICD lead extraction

Specialty: Cardiac Electrophysiology • Cardiac Surgery • Cardiology

Reimplantation and long-term mortality after transvenous lead extraction in a high-risk, single-center cohort

PURPOSE

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly over the last decades. With the development of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), procedural success rates also improved; however, data regarding long-term outcomes are still limited. The aim of our study was to analyze the outcomes after TLE, including reimplantation data, all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE in our institution between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Periprocedural, 30-day, long-term, and cause-specific mortalities were calculated. We examined the original and the revised CIED indications and survival rate of patients with or without reimplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients (age 66 ± 14 years) with 308 leads (dwelling time 7.8 ± 6.3 years) underwent TLE due to pocket infection (n = 105, 70%), endocarditis (n = 35, 23%), or non-infectious indications (n = 10, 7%). All-cause mortality data were available for all patients, detailed reimplantation data in 98 cases. Procedural death rate was 2% (n = 3), 30-day mortality rate 2.6% (n = 4). During the 3.5 ± 2.4 years of follow-up, 44 patients died. Arrhythmia, as the direct cause of death, was absent. Cardiovascular cause was responsible for mortality in 25%. There was no significant survival difference between groups with or without reimplantation (p = 0.136).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high number of pocket and systemic infection and long dwelling times in our cohort, the short- and long-term mortality after TLE proved to be favorable. Moreover, survival without a new device was not worse compared to patients who underwent a reimplantation procedure. Our study underlines the importance of individual reassessment of the original CIED indication, to avoid unnecessary reimplantation.