Right atrial lead fixation type and lead position are associated with significant variation in complications

[Lead placement in cardiac implantable electronic devices]

The implantation of electrodes for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) requires profound technical understanding and precise execution. The positioning of electrodes in the right ventricle and atrium has significant implications for patient safety and the effectiveness of CIED therapy. Particular focus is given to the distinction between apical and septal stimulation in ventricular positioning. Based on current data, this article provides a practice-oriented guide that leads implanters through the individual steps of electrode positioning. The implantation of electrodes for physiological stimulation (cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT, and conduction system pacing, CSP) is not addressed in this article.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?

The history of cardiac pacing dates back to the 1930s with externalized pacing and has evolved to incorporate transvenous, multi-lead, or even leadless devices. Annual implantation rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices have increased since the introduction of the implantable system, likely related to expanding indications, and increasing global life expectancy and aging demographics. Here, we summarize the relevant literature on cardiac pacing to demonstrate the enormous impact it has had within the field of cardiology. Further, we look forward to the future of cardiac pacing, including conduction system pacing and leadless pacing strategies.

Short- and Long-Term Risk of Lead Dislodgement Events: Real-World Experience From Product Surveillance Registry

BACKGROUND

Lead dislodgement (LD) has been one of the most common early complications after cardiovascular implantable electronic device implant. However, limited data are available on the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of LD events. The aim of this study was to examine the risk factors, clinical significance, and management strategies of LD events after cardiovascular implantable electronic device implant.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of 20 683 patients who underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device implant between January 1, 2010 and January 31, 2020 in Medtronic's Product Surveillance Registry, with a mean follow-up time of 3.3±2.5 SD years. The study population was divided into 2 groups: group A with LD events (N=350) and group B without LD events (N=20 333).

RESULTS

During this period, 350 patients (1.69%) had LD events involving 371 leads (0.95%), among a total of 39 060 leads implanted. Passive fixation type (right atrium pacing lead, P=0.041), lower sensing amplitude (right ventricle defibrillating lead, P=0.020), and lower lead impedance at implant (right atrium pacing lead, P=0.009) were associated with increased LD risk. Multivariate analysis showed female sex (hazard ratio, 1.520, P=0.008) and higher body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.012, P=0.001) were independently associated with increased risk of LD events. LD events were not associated with significant changes in the long-term risks of cardiac and overall mortality. In group A, repositioning the dislodged leads increased the risk of a second LD event compared with implanting new leads (P=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Female sex and higher body mass index were associated with higher risk of LD events in the Product Surveillance Registry. Among patients with dislodged leads, implanting new leads was associated with lower risk of future LD events. Further studies on how to reduce LD risk and to improve management of these events are needed.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01524276.

Implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker in a patient with dextrocardia and sick sinus syndrome: a case report

Dextrocardia is a congenital abnormal position of the heart in which the main part of the heart is in the right chest, and the long axis of the heart points to the lower right. Cases of a combination of dextrocardia and sick sinus syndrome are rare. A 65-year-old female patient was admitted to hospital with palpitations and dizziness for 1 week. Mirror-image dextrocardia and sick sinus syndrome were diagnosed by an electrocardiogram, echocardiography, Holter monitoring, and X-rays. Finally, we successfully implanted a dual-chamber pacemaker into the patient. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged when her symptoms had greatly improved 1 week later. When dextrocardia is present, using active fixation leads in the atrial and ventricular leads is easier for finding the pacing position with optimal sensing and pacing thresholds, and they reduce the incidence of falling off.

EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Following Heart Transplantation

Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is required in a subset of patients (∼10%) for sinus node dysfunction or atrioventricular block both early and late after heart transplantation. The incidence of PPM implantation has decreased to <5% with the advent of bicaval anastamosis transplantation surgery. Pacing dependence upon follow-up has been variably reported. An even smaller percentage of transplantation recipients (1.5% to 3.4%) undergo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Rigorous data are lacking for the use of ICDs in the transplantation population and is largely derived from cohort studies and case series. Sudden cardiac death occurs in approximately 10% of transplantation recipients, but multiple nonarrhythmic factors are believed to be responsible, including acute rejection, late graft failure with electromechanical dissociation, and ischemia due to cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the existing data regarding the role for PPMs and ICDs in this population, including leadless PPMs and subcutaneous ICDs, special considerations, and future directions.

Lead choice in cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Background: Few data are available regarding lead preferences of electrophysiologists during cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation. Aim of this survey is to evaluate the leads used, and the reasons behind these choices, in a large population of implanters. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 314 Italian centers with experience in CIED implantation. Results: 103 operators from 100 centers (32% of centers) responded. For atrium, passive leads represented first choice for pacemakers and defibrillators (71% and 64% of physicians, respectively), mainly for safety. For right ventricle, active fixation was preferred (61% and 93% operators in pacemaker and defibrillator patients), for higher versatility in positioning and lower dislodgement risk. For left ventricular stimulation, quadripolar leads were preferred by more than 80% of respondents, for better phrenic nerve and myocardial threshold management; active-fixation leads represent a second choice, in order to prevent or manage dislodgement (78% and 17% of respondents, respectively), but 44% of operators considered them dangerous. Conclusions: The choice of leads is heterogeneous. Trends are toward active-fixation right ventricular leads and passive-fixation atrial leads (particularly in pacemaker patients, considered frailer). For left ventricular stimulation, operators' majority want to disposition all kind of leads, although quadripolar leads are the favorites.

Subacute pneumothorax contralateral to the venous access site associated with atrial lead perforation in a patient who was receiving corticosteroid therapy

Pneumothorax contralateral to the venous access site due to the right atrial lead is an uncommon complication. Concomitant steroid use is known as a risk factor of pacemaker lead perforation. We report a rare case of subacute contralateral pneumothorax due to a screw-in atrial lead perforation that occurred after dual-chamber pacemaker implantation in a patient who was receiving steroid therapy. The pneumothorax disappeared, and no recurrence was observed during follow-up with close observation alone.

•

We report a case of contralateral pneumothorax due to pacemaker implantation.

•

Long-term steroid therapy is a risk factor of lead perforation.

•

The pneumothorax resolved with close observation alone.

A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of active versus passive atrial lead fixation in Chinese patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices: a long term, retrospective, observational, single-center study

BACKGROUND

Data comparing active atrial lead fixation with passive atrial lead fixation in Chinese patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) for atrial pacing is limited. Our study evaluated the effectiveness of active fixation versus passive fixation of atrial leads by observing the lead performance parameters.

METHODS

This retrospective, long-term, single-center study included a cohort of Chinese patients who underwent CIED implantation at the Department of Cardiology of People's Hospital of Yuxi City, China, from 1 March 2010 to 1 March 2015. Efficacy was determined by comparing implantation time, threshold values, incidence of lead dislocation/failure, and lead-related complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 1217 patients, active and passive atrial lead fixation were performed in 530 (mean age, 69.37 ± 11.44 years) and 497 (mean age, 68.33 ± 10.96 years). The active fixation group reported significantly lower mean atrial implantation times (P = .0001) and threshold values (P = .044) compared with the passive atrial lead fixation group. In addition, threshold values in the active atrial lead fixation group were stable throughout the observation period. No instances of myocardial perforation, cardiac tamponade, implantation failure, or electrode dislocation/re-fixation were reported in the active atrial lead fixation group. A favorable decrease in patient comfort parameters such as bed rest time (P = .027) and duration of hospital stay (P = .038) were also observed in the active lead fixation group.

CONCLUSION

Active atrial lead fixation demonstrated greater stability, steady long-term thresholds and minimal lead-related complications compared to passive lead fixation in Chinese patients with CIEDs.