Treatment of pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome by balloon angioplasty and stenting

Pacemaker lead thrombosis - a rare cause of breathlessness

As the number of pacemaker insertions increases to manage numerous cardiac arrhythmias, the number of complications is also increasing as a result. More common complications such as infection and lead displacement are routinely discussed with patients before they undergo the procedure. However rare complications such as superior vena cava syndrome are not discussed during the consenting period. But they do occur, as seen in this case of a 69-year-old male. This fit and active man had a right-sided dual-chamber pacemaker inserted due to sinus node disease and presented 5 years later with symptoms suggestive of superior vena cava obstruction (SVCO). Despite anticoagulation and before surgical intervention could be performed, the patient developed a right-sided chylothorax which was drained. An autologous pericardial patch repair of the SVC and a thrombectomy of SVC clots was subsequently performed. This was only partially successful and the SVCO recurred. A low fatty chain diet was initiated to manage the chylothorax, which remains stable. This rare complication has left the patient with a small pleural effusion and chronic pleural thickening. They can still exercise with mild breathlessness. The management of such a complication, which requires the input of many specialists, is challenging and often does not completely resolve all symptoms. For this reason, superior vena cava obstruction should be considered as a risk during the consenting procedure for a pacemaker insertion.

Superior Vena Cava Syndrome: An Umbrella Review

Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) is a medical emergency that encompasses an array of signs and symptoms due to obstruction of blood flow through the superior vena cava (SVC). It poses a significant healthcare burden due to its associated morbidity and mortality. Its impact on the healthcare system continues to grow due to the increasing incidence of the condition. This incidence trend has been attributed to the growing use of catheters, pacemakers, and defibrillators, although it is a rare complication of these devices. The most common cause of SVCS remains malignancies accounting for up to 60% of the cases. Understanding the pathophysiology of SVCS requires understanding the anatomy, the SVC drains blood from the right and left brachiocephalic veins, which drain the head and the upper extremities accounting for about one-third of the venous blood to the heart. The most common presenting symptoms of SVCS are swelling of the face and hand, chest pain, respiratory symptoms (dyspnea, stridor, cough, hoarseness, and dysphagia), and neurologic manifestations (headaches, confusion, or visual/auditory disturbances). Symptoms generally worsen in a supine position. Diagnosis typically requires imaging, and SVCS can be graded based on classification schemas depending on the severity of symptoms and the location, understanding, and degree of obstruction. Over the past decades, the management modalities of SVCS have evolved to meet the increasing burden of the condition. Here, we present an umbrella review providing an overall assessment of the available information on SVCS, including the various management options, their indications, and a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of these modalities.

Superior Vena Cava Syndrome: Etiologies, Manifestations, and Treatments

Superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction, whether from benign or malignant causes, results in a variety of symptoms. It is a potential medical emergency when cerebral or laryngeal edema occurs. Endovascular therapy is the treatment of choice for patients in need of emergent relief of symptoms. This article will provide a review of SVC syndrome with a focus on endovascular treatment techniques.

Central Venoplasty in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the central venous angioplasty in patients with central venous occlusion and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) without lead extraction.

Materials and Methods A retrospective study was used to evaluate the effectiveness of 37 central venous angioplasty procedure for 15 patients with CIED without lead extraction.

Results Technical success was achieved in 97% (n = 36/37) and clinical success was achieved in 89% (33/37) of the procedures. One procedure failed recanalization of chronic total occlusion of the left subclavian vein, and the patient required fistula embolization due to severe arm swelling. Another procedure failed initially to recanalize long-segment occlusion involving the right subclavian vein/brachiocephalic vein and superior vena cava in a patient with a history of Hickman line and left-sided CIED. This was successfully recanalized and angioplastied on a subsequent session. No lead fracture or dislodgment was documented in any procedure. No procedure-related complication was documented within 2 weeks after the angioplasty. Six-month primary patency was achieved in 62% (23/37) of the procedures. Ten patients (66%) required an average of 1.4 reinterventions (range: 1–4 interventions) during the follow-up time with mean time to reintervention of 318 days (5–1,380 days). Two patients required early reinterventions within 10 days due to catheter dysfunction.

Conclusion Findings of this study support the existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of balloon angioplasty without lead extraction.

Percutaneous management of superior vena cava syndrome in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding the optimal management of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)-related superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

We report our experience with transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) in the setting of symptomatic CIED-related SVC syndrome.

METHODS

We reviewed all TLEs performed at a high-volume center over a 14-year period and identified patients in which TLE was performed for symptomatic SVC syndrome. Patient characteristics, extraction details, percutaneous management of SVC occlusions, and clinical follow up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over a 14-year period, more than 1600 TLEs were performed. Of these, 16 patients underwent TLE for symptomatic SVC syndrome. The mean age was 53.1 ± 12.8 years, and 9 (56.3%) were men. Thirty-seven leads, with a mean dwell time of 5.8 years (range 2-12 years), were extracted. After extraction, 6 patients (37.5%) received an SVC stent. Balloon angioplasty was performed before stenting in 5 cases (31.3%). There was 1 major complication (6.3%) due to an SVC tear that was managed surgically with a favorable outcome. Eleven patients underwent reimplantation of a CIED. Over a median follow-up of 5.5 years (interquartile range 2.0-8.5 years), 12 patients (75%) remained free of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Combining TLE with the percutaneous treatment of symptomatic SVC syndrome is a safe and viable treatment strategy.

Superior vena cava syndrome

The superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) is caused by compression, invasion, and/or thrombosis of the superior vena cava and/or the brachiocephalic veins. Benign SVCS is separated from malignant SVCS. SVCS comprises a broad clinical spectrum reaching from asymptomatic cases to rare life-threatening emergencies with upper airway obstruction and increased intracranial pressure. Symptoms are correlated to the acuity and extent of the venous obstruction and inversely correlated to the development of the venous collateral circuits. Imaging is necessary to determine the exact underlying cause and to guide further interventions. Interventional therapy has widely changed the therapeutic approach in symptomatic patients. This article provides an overview over this complex syndrome and focuses on interventional therapeutic methods and results.

Lead-related superior vena cava syndrome: Management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome includes the clinical sequalae of facial and bilateral upper extremity edema, dizziness, and occasional syncope. Historically, most cases have been associated with malignancy and treatment is palliative. However, cardiac device leads have been identified as important nonmalignant causes of this syndrome. There are little data on the effectiveness of venoplasty and lead extraction in the management of these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report the findings associated with the use of balloon angioplasty and lead extraction in the management of 17 patients with lead induced SVC syndrome.

METHODS

Data collected from January 2003 to July 2019 identified 17 cases of SVC syndrome at our tertiary center. Their outcomes were compared to a control group of patients without SVC syndrome. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 17 patients, 13 (76%) underwent transvenous lead extraction and venoplasty. Three patients (18%) were treated with venoplasty alone, and 1 patient (6%) underwent surgical SVC reconstruction. In 10 patients (59%), transvenous reimplantation was necessary. Symptom resolution was achieved in all 17 patients and confirmed at both 6 and 12 months' follow-up. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications associated with transvenous lead extraction for SVC syndrome vs control.

CONCLUSION

In patients with SVC syndrome, venoplasty and lead extraction are safe and effective for resolution of symptoms and maintaining SVC patency.

Venous Obstruction in Cardiac Rhythm Device Therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A variety of complex vascular pathologies arise following the implantation of electronic cardiac devices. Pacemaker and defibrillator lead insertion may cause proximal venous obstruction, resulting in symptomatic venous congestion and the compromise of potential future access sites for cardiac rhythm lead management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Various innovative techniques to recanalize the vein and establish alternate venous access have been pioneered over the past few years. A collaborative team of electrophysiologists and vascular specialists strategically integrate the patient's vascular disease into the planning of electrophysiology procedures. When vascular complications occur after device implantation, the same team effectively manages both the resulting vascular sequelae and related cardiac rhythm device challenges. This review will outline the various vascular challenges related to device therapy and offer an effective strategy for their management.

Endovascular Treatment of Superior Vena Cava Syndrome via Balloon-in-Balloon Catheter Technique with a Palmaz Stent

Superior vena cava syndrome is a well-known disease entity that carries substantial rates of morbidity and mortality. Although most cases of superior vena cava syndrome are secondary to a malignant process, additional causes (such as mediastinal fibrosis, pacemaker lead implantation, or central venous catheter placement) have been reported. Multiple treatment options include percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent implantation, thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, and venous grafting. We present a case of superior vena cava syndrome in a symptomatic 30-year-old woman who obtained complete relief of obstruction and marked symptomatic improvement through venoplasty and stenting, aided by our use of a balloon-in-balloon catheter system.

Palliative treatment of superior vena cava syndrome with nitinol stents

This study aims to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes following nitinol stent placement for malignant superior vena cava syndrome. A total of 25 patients with thoracic malignancies were treated with self-expanding nitinol stents for superior vena cava syndrome (E*Luminexx [Bard GmbH/Angiomed, Karlsruhe, Germany], Sinus-XL [OptiMed Medizinische Instrumente GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany], and Zilver Vena [Cook Medical Inc., Bloomington, IN]). It was seen that the procedural success rate was 76% with all stents deployed as intended and no procedure-related complications but in five patients with 50% residual stenosis and one patient with stent occlusion within 48 hours after stent deployment. Stent occlusion occurred in further two patients during follow-up: one patient developed infection, thrombosis, and occlusion in the stent seen at 2-month follow-up, and one patient had stent occlusion at 4-month follow-up. The clinical success rate was 96%. Stent compression leading to a greater than 50% reduction in stent diameter was observed in three patients at follow-up. Overall 22 patients died at a mean follow-up of 3.5 months for reasons related to their underlying malignancy. It was concluded that the stent treatment for superior vena cava syndrome is a safe treatment with good clinical effect in patients with superior vena cava syndrome in the terminal phase of malignant disease. In this small patient population, no trends were observed which would suggest that outcomes vary by stent type, though additional, large-scale studies are needed.

Open surgery repair for superior vena cava syndrome after failed endovascular stenting

Thrombosis is a rare cause of superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome. We report a 37-year-old man hospitalized because of swelling of the face and neck. A computed tomography angiography showed a thrombotic obstruction of SVC. The patient was treated by percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty of the SVC and placement of a stent. The symptoms disappeared, but the patient was hospitalized again after 3 months for the same complaints. Computed tomography angiography showed thrombosis in the stent in the SVC. The SVC was replaced with a prosthetic blood vessel. The patient's postoperative recovery was uneventful, and SVC syndrome did not occur during 2 years of postoperative follow-up.

[Superior vena cava syndrome induced by pacemaker probes, 12 years after introduction]

Superior vena cava syndrome is a rare disease, most often found to result from a malignant process, which causes extrinsic compression of the superior vena cava. In recent years, there has been an increase of superior vena cava syndrome related to medical devices (implantable site, pacemaker [PM], central venous line for parenteral nutrition...). We report the case of a 37-year-old patient who developed a superior vena cava syndrome 12 years after implantation of a PM. The diagnosis was established on venography after two negative venous-CT focused on the superior vena cava. The superior vena cava syndrome improved immediately after angioplasty and stenting covering the PM probes at the superior vena cava/brachiocephalic venous trunk junction.