Comparison of outcomes in patients with abandoned versus extracted implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads

When pacing or defibrillator leads become redundant: Extract or abandon?

The 2017 Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus paper on lead management and extraction did not express a preference for either extracting or abandoning pacing or defibrillator leads that are dysfunctional or superfluous after an upgrade (hereafter referred to as redundant leads). However, no randomized or even nonrandomized trials show a better patient outcome with extraction. Many experienced centers currently advise patients to have redundant leads removed to prevent more complicated procedures after years of abandonment. According to the literature, however, not all abandoned leads need to be extracted as >90% will have an uneventful follow-up. As immediate extraction of redundant leads has a small but significant risk, this will generate more adverse events at the population level than when extraction is limited to the patients with future lead complications, even considering a higher extraction risk at that time. Lead extraction is also limited to specialized centers and often necessitates expensive tools, in contrast to abandoning leads, which can be safely performed by any experienced device specialist without additional cost.

Long-term outcomes of abandoned leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the long-term outcomes of abandoned leads (ALs) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of ALs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study reviewed a single-center CIED registry of 2962 procedures performed from 1984-2018 and identified 130 patients with AL (AL group). We matched 2 controls without AL (by age, sex, device type, and device revision/removal date) to each patient with AL (n = 260) and compared CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality between groups using a Cox proportional hazard model analysis.

RESULTS

For a mean follow-up period of 11.2 ± 8.2 years, 14 (3.6%), 7 (1.8%), and 143 (36.7%) patients had a CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or experienced all-cause mortality, respectively. The AL group had more comorbidities than the control group. Lead malfunction was the most common cause of abandonment (64.6%). After adjustment for covariates, no significant intergroup differences were noted in the risks of infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-8.25; aHR 1.18; 95% CI 0.25-5.64; aHR 1.26; 95% CI 0.89-1.80, respectively). Patients with multiple ALs had increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality vs controls (aHR 8.61; 95% CI 2.13-34.84; aHR 2.42; 95% CI 1.17-5.00, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a single AL showed similar risks of CIED-related infections, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality as those without ALs, whereas those with multiple ALs showed increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality.

Lead Abandonment and Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation in a Cohort of Patients With ICD Lead Malfunction

Background: When an implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead becomes non-functional, a recommendation currently exists for either lead abandonment or removal. Lead abandonment and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation may represent an additional option for patients who do not require pacing. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of a strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation in the setting of lead malfunction.

Methods: We analyzed all consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads and compared their outcomes with those of patients who underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a single-chamber transvenous ICD (T-ICD).

Results: Forty-three patients underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads, while 62 patients underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a new T-ICD. The two groups were comparable. In the extraction group, no major complications occurred during extraction, while the procedure failed and an S-ICD was implanted in 4 patients. During a median follow-up of 21 months, 3 major complications or deaths occurred in the S-ICD group and 11 in the T-ICD group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.29–3.94; P = 0.912). Minor complications were 4 in the S-ICD group and 5 in the T-ICD group (HR 2.13; 95% CI 0.49–9.24; P = 0.238).

Conclusions: In the event of ICD lead malfunction, extraction avoids the potential long-term risks of abandoned leads. Nonetheless the strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation was feasible and safe, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes, and may represent an option in selected clinical settings. Further studies are needed to fully understand the potential risks of lead abandonment.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02275637

Long-term follow-up of abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads: a nationwide cohort study

AIMS

Commonly, a dysfunctional defibrillator lead is abandoned and a new lead is implanted. Long-term follow-up data on abandoned leads are sparse. We aimed to investigate the incidence and reasons for extraction of abandoned defibrillator leads in a nationwide cohort and to describe extraction procedure-related complications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads were identified in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register from 1991 to 2019. The event-free survival of abandoned defibrillator leads was studied, and medical records of patients with interventions on abandoned defibrillator leads were audited for procedure-related data. We identified 740 abandoned defibrillator leads. Meantime from implantation to abandonment was 7.2 ± 3.8 years with mean patient age at abandonment of 66.5 ± 13.7 years. During a mean follow-up after abandonment of 4.4 ± 3.1 years, 65 (8.8%) abandoned defibrillator leads were extracted. Most frequent reason for extraction was infection (pocket and systemic) in 41 (63%) patients. Procedural outcome after lead extraction was clinical success in 63 (97%) patients. Minor complications occurred in 3 (5%) patients, and major complications in 1 (2%) patient. No patient died from complication to the procedure during 30-day follow-up after extraction.

CONCLUSION

More than 90% of abandoned defibrillator leads do not need to be extracted during long-term follow-up. The most common indication for extraction is infection. Abandoned defibrillator leads can be extracted with high clinical success rate and low risk of major complications at high-volume centres.

Erosion of Cardiovascular Implantable Device: Conservative Therapy or Extraction?

The standard of care for device infection is normally a complete removal of the implantable system, including lead extraction in local or systemic infection cases. Despite the importance of lead extraction techniques, these techniques are complex and have some major risks. Success rates were high, but they are less favorable in patients with several comorbidities. An 80-year-old male presented for device erosion. The patient is known to have several cardiac comorbidities: a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), mitral clips for severe aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) for secondary prevention. Several weeks ago, he noted tenderness and redness at the site of his device pocket, and his physician, after checking his wound, suggested a possible skin irritation with no systemic infection and started antibiotics treatment. Two weeks later, he noted thinning of the skin around the device with a hematoma and ecchymosis, and slight skin erosion. Strategies for assessment of the wound and pocket cleaning were taken. The strategy was to remove the left-sided device and keep the leads since the patient lately has no elevated inflammatory labs, negative cultures, no fever, nor signs of vegetation on transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and refused any additional examination as positron emission tomography (PET) scan, and reimplant a new system on the contralateral side. The procedure was divided into two sequences: extracting the device and after one-week implantation of a right-sided new system. In this case, chronic antibiotics were discussable to decrease the recurrence rate, but they did increase the severity of the patient's thrombocytopenia. Despite extraction being the gold standard of treatment in most cases of devices with local and systemic infection, there are some frail patients with several comorbidities where extraction is unbearable due to its major risks and complex procedure. In these specific cases with local infection and device erosion with no signs of any systemic infection, conservative therapy could be a viable option.

Study Design of the Nationwide Japanese Lead Extraction (J-LEX) Registry: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicenter, Open Registry

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) in Japan have grown to become the standard therapy since the approval of the laser extraction system in 2008. However, little is known about the current indications, methods, success rate, and acute complications in the real-world setting.

METHODS

The Japanese Lead EXtraction (J-LEX) registry is a nationwide, multicenter, observational registry, performed by the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS) in collaboration with the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. This study is a nationwide registry ordered by the JHRS and its data are collected prospectively using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system. The acute success rate at discharge and complications associated with TLEs will be collected in all cases. Based on the provided information, the annual incidence and predictive factors for the outcomes will be investigated by the Event Assessment Committee (EAC). This registry started in July 2018 and the number of participating medical institutions will be more than 50 hospitals and the target number of procedures will be 500-1000 per year. We will also compare the results with other registries in foreign countries.

RESULT

The results of this study are currently under investigation.

CONCLUSION

The J-LEX registry will provide real-world data regarding the results and complications of TLEs for the various types of indications, methods, and performing hospitals in Japan.

The role of transvenous lead extraction in the management of redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker and defibrillator leads post ELECTRa

Cardiac implantable electronic devices implantation rates have increased over the past decade due to broader indications and an ageing population. Similarly, device and lead complications have also risen. The management of pacemaker/defibrillator leads that are no longer required (redundant) or malfunctioning, can be contentious. There is a need to balance the risk of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) against those of lead abandonment. The recently published European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry (ELECTRa) study provides contemporary outcomes for TLE across Europe with important implications for the management of redundant and/or malfunctioning leads. This review article discusses the potential complications for each interventional approach when managing redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker leads.

Outcomes Associated With Extraction Versus Capping and Abandoning Pacing and Defibrillator Leads

Background:

Lead management is an increasingly important aspect of care in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices; however, relatively little is known about long-term outcomes after capping and abandoning leads.

Methods:

Using the 5% Medicare sample, we identified patients with de novo cardiac implantable electronic device implantations between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, and with a subsequent lead addition or extraction ≥12 months after the de novo implantation. Patients who underwent extraction for infection were excluded. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, device-related infection, device revision, and lead extraction at 1 and 5 years for the extraction versus the cap and abandon group.

Results:

Among 6859 patients, 1113 (16.2%) underwent extraction, whereas 5746 (83.8%) underwent capping and abandonment. Extraction patients tended to be younger (median, 78 versus 79 years; P <0.0001), were less likely to be male (65% versus 68%; P =0.05), and had shorter lead dwell time (median, 3.0 versus 4.0 years; P <0.0001) and fewer comorbidities. Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (25th, 75th percentiles, 1.0, 4.3 years), the overall 1-year and 5-year cumulative incidence of mortality was 13.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7–14.4) and 54.3% (95% CI, 52.8–55.8), respectively. Extraction was associated with a lower risk of device infection at 5 years relative to capping (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62–0.97; P =0.027). There was no association between extraction and mortality, lead revision, or lead extraction at 5 years.

Conclusions:

Elective lead extraction for noninfectious indications had similar long-term survival to that for capping and abandoning leads in a Medicare population. However, extraction was associated with lower risk of device infections at 5 years.

Outcomes 1 Year After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Abandonment Versus Explantation for Unused or Malfunctioning Leads: A Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

BACKGROUND

Patients with an unused or malfunctioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead may have the lead either abandoned or explanted; yet there are limited data on the comparative acute and longer-term safety of these 2 approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined in-hospital events among 24 908 subject encounters using propensity score 1:1 matching for ICD lead abandonment or explantation in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry (April 2010 to June 2014). Relative to patients undergoing lead abandonment, patients undergoing lead explantation had more in-hospital procedure-related complications: 2.19% (n=273) versus 3.77% (n=469; P<0.001), respectively. Similarly, patients undergoing lead explantation had slightly higher rates of in-hospital death: 0.21% (n=26) versus 0.64% (n=80; P<0.001), respectively. At 1 year in a Medicare subset for survival, there was a trend of increased mortality in the explantation group (11% versus 8%; P=0.06). In the Medicare subset analyzed for postprocedure complications, there was no difference with respect to 6-month bleeding (4.80% in both the groups), tamponade (0.38% versus 0.58%), infection (1.34% versus 3.07%), upper extremity thrombosis (0.77% versus 0.96%), pulmonary embolism (0.38% versus 0.96%), or urgent surgery (1.15% for both the groups; P>0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

After matching, patients undergoing removal of an unused or malfunctioning ICD lead had slightly higher in-hospital complications and deaths than those with a lead abandonment strategy. Although the 1-year mortality risk was slightly higher in the lead explantation group, this difference was not statistically significant and may be explained by chance.

Frequency and clinical impact of retained implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead materials in heart transplant recipients

End-stage heart failure patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with/without cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) often require heart transplantation (HTPL) as a last-resort treatment. We aimed to assess the frequency and clinical impact of retained ICD lead materials in HTPL patients. In this retrospective single center study, we examined the clinical records and chest radiographs of patients with ICD and CRT-D who underwent HTPL between January 1992 and July 2014. Of 40 patients with ICD and CRT-D at HTPL, 19 (47.5%) patients had retained ICD lead materials within the central venous system. Retained ICD lead materials following HTPL were more frequently noted in patients with longer implantation durations until HTPL. None of the patients underwent extraction procedures after HTPL. All patients were asymptomatic and did not exhibit significant complications or death related to the retained ICD lead materials. Seven (7/40, 17.5%) patients without any retained ICD lead materials underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during the follow-up period (median, 29.5 months); none of the patients with retained lead materials were given MRI. Considering the common use of MRI in HTPL patients, further studies on the prophylactic extraction of retained ICD lead materials and safety of MRI in these patients are needed.

A Questionable Indication For ICD Extraction After Successful VT Ablation

Sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias represent a kind of complication shared by a number of clinical presentations of heart disease, sometimes leading to sudden cardiac death. Many efforts have been made in the fight against such a complication, mainly being represented by the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In recent years, catheter ablation has grown as a means to effectively treat patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias, in the contest of different cardiac substrates. Since carrying an ICD is associated with a potential risk deriving from its possible infective or malfunctioning complications, and given the current effectiveness of lead extraction procedures, it has been thought not to be unreasonable to ask ourselves about how to deal with ICD patients who have been successfully treated by means of ablation of their ventricular arrhythmias. To date, no control data have been published on transvenous lead extraction in the setting of VT ablation. In this paper we will review the current evidence about ICD therapy, catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias and lead extraction, trying to outline some considerations about how to face this new clinical issue.

Managing patients with advisory defibrillator leads: what can we learn from published data?

Defibrillator lead advisories stir a lot of emotions, both with patients and physicians, and this may influence lead management. We reviewed the literature for a more evidence-based approach to this issue.

From the complications of two of the current advisory leads, the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis and St. Jude Riata leads, and the consequences of possible interventions, we can conclude that a restrained approach to premature replacement is appropriate. It may be opportune to replace the leads during a scheduled generator replacement in case of a higher electrical failure rate, in order to prevent future premature interventions.

We found no support to extract non-functional advisory leads. In contrast, extraction is often more demanding than anticipated, and the risk substantially exceeds that of simply abandoning the leads.

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.

From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction

Percutaneous lead extraction is considered a safe and effective procedure, although published results derive primarily from cohort studies. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years' experience in this field, to give an objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. Moreover, the subsequent metaregression analysis enabled the identification of the main factors influencing these results: patient age, presence of leads in situ for more than 1 year, presence of device infection and use of laser sheath. These findings are significant in order to improve our extraction approach, data reporting and future research.