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

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.

Practical Considerations for Cardiac Electronic Devices Reimplantation Following Transvenous Lead Extraction Due to Related Endocarditis

Despite progress in implantation technology and prophylactic measures, infection complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are still a major concern with negative impacts on patient outcomes and the health system's resources. Infective endocarditis (IE) represents one of the most threatening CIED-related infections associated with high mortality rates and requires prompt diagnosis and management. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE), combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy, has been validated as an effective approach to treat patients with CIED-related IE. Though early complete removal is undoubtedly recommended for CIED-related IE or systemic infection, device reimplantation still represents a clinical challenge in these patients at high risk of reinfection, with many gaps in the current knowledge and international guidelines. Based on the available literature data and authors' experience, this review aims to address the practical and clinical considerations regarding CIED reimplantation following lead extraction for related IE, focusing on the reassessment of CIED indication, procedure timing, and the reimplanted CIED type and site. A tailored, multidisciplinary approach involving clinical cardiologists, electrophysiologists, cardiac imaging experts, cardiac surgeons, and infectious disease specialists is crucial to optimize these patients' management and clinical outcomes.

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.

Antibiotic-Eluting Envelopes for the Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Rationale, Efficacy, and Cost-Effectiveness

Infections related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite optimal use of antimicrobials and other preventive strategies, the incidence of CIED infections is increasing over time leading to considerable costs to the healthcare systems. Recently, antibiotic-eluting envelopes (AEEs) have been introduced as a promising technology to prevent CIED infections. This review will address the current evidence on stratification of CIED infection risk, present the rationale behind AEE, and summarize the currently available evidence for CIED infection prevention as well as demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of this novel technology.