Lead extraction for device related infections: a single-centre experience

Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Transvenous lead extraction in patients with systemic cardiac device-related infection-Procedural outcome and risk prediction: A GALLERY subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has evolved as one of the most crucial treatment options for patients with cardiac device-related systemic infection (CDRSI).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to characterize the procedural outcome and risk factors of patients with CDRSI undergoing TLE.

METHODS

A subgroup analysis of patients with CDRSI of the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) database was performed. Predictors for complications, procedural failure, and all-cause mortality were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 722 patients (28.6%) in the GALLERY had "systemic infection" as extraction indication. Patients with CDRSI were older (70.1 ± 12.2 years vs 67.3 ± 14.3 years; P < .001) and had more comorbidities than patients with local infections or noninfectious extraction indications. There were no differences in complete procedural success (90.6% vs 91.7%; P = .328) or major complications (2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .416) but increased procedure-related (1.4% vs 0.3%; P = .003) and all-cause in-hospital mortality (11.1% vs 0.6%; P < .001) for patients with CDRSI. Multivariate analyses revealed lead age ≥10 years as a predictor for procedural complications (odds ratio [OR] 3.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-6.60; P = .001). Lead age ≥10 years (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.03-6.46; P = .04) was also a predictor for procedural failure. We identified left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.00-2.99; P = .049), age ≥75 years (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.27-3.48; P = .004), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.17-3.14; P = .01), and overall procedural complications (OR 5.15; 95% CI 2.44-10.84; P < .001) as predictors for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CDRSI undergoing TLE demonstrate an increased rate of all-cause in-hospital, as well as procedure-related mortality, despite having comparable procedural success rates. Given these data, it seems paramount to develop preventive strategies to detect and treat CDRSI in its earliest stages.

Efficacy and mortality of rotating sheaths versus laser sheaths for transvenous lead extraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rotating and laser sheaths are both routinely used in transvenous lead extraction (TLE) which can lead to catastrophic complications including death. The efficacy and risk of each approach are uncertain. To perform a meta-analysis to compare success and mortality rates associated with rotating and laser sheaths.

METHODS

We searched electronic academic databases for case series of consecutive patients and randomized controlled trials published 1998-2017 describing the use of rotating and laser sheaths for TLE. Among 48 studies identified, rotating sheaths included 1,094 patients with 1,955 leads in 14 studies, and laser sheaths included 7,775 patients with 12,339 leads in 34 studies. Patients receiving rotating sheaths were older (63 versus 60 years old) and were more often male (74% versus 72%); CRT-P/Ds were more commonly extracted using rotating sheaths (12% versus 7%), whereas ICDs were less common (37% versus 42%), p > 0.05 for all. Infection as an indication for lead extraction was higher in the rotating sheath group (59.8% versus 52.9%, p = 0.002). The mean time from initial lead implantation was 7.2 years for rotating sheaths and 6.3 years for laser sheaths (p > 0.05).

RESULTS

Success rates for complete removal of transvenous leads were 95.1% in rotating sheaths and 93.4% in laser sheaths (p < 0.05). There was one death among 1,094 patients (0.09%) in rotating sheaths and 66 deaths among 7,775 patients (0.85%) in laser sheaths, translating to a 9.3-fold higher risk of death with laser sheaths (95% CI 1.3 to 66.9, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Laser sheaths were associated with lower complete lead removal rate and a 9.3-fold higher risk of death.

Algorithm for the analysis of pre-extraction computed tomographic images to evaluate implanted lead-lead interactions and lead-vascular attachments

BACKGROUND

The number of lead extractions is growing because of the greater population and increasing age of individuals with a cardiac implantable electronic device. Lead extraction procedures can be complex undertakings with risk of significant mortality, and vascular tears in the superior vena cava are of greatest concern.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to study whether a novel algorithm that analyzes pre-extraction computed tomographic (CT) images can determine the likelihood and location of lead-lead interactions and lead-vessel attachment within patients' venous vasculatures. This information can be used to identify potential case challenges in the planning stages.

METHODS

We developed an algorithm to estimate the presence and position of lead-lead interactions and lead-vessel adherences by tracking distance between the leads and distance between the lead and superior vena cava in a sample of 12 patients referred to the United Heart and Vascular Clinic for lead extractions due to infection (n = 5), lead failure (n = 5), and tricuspid regurgitation (n = 2).

RESULTS

Preliminary results indicate that the developed algorithm successfully identified lead-lead and lead-vascular attachments compared to review of CT images by medical experts.

CONCLUSION

With future validation and clinical implementation, this algorithm could aid physician preparedness by minimizing intraprocedural emergencies and may improve patient outcomes.

Strategies for Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has undergone an explosive evolution since its inception as a rudimentary skill with limited technology and therapeutic options. Early techniques involved simple manual traction that frequently proved ineffective for chronically implanted leads, and carried a significant risk of myocardial avulsion, tamponade, and death. The morbidity and mortality associated with these early extraction techniques limited their application to use only in life-threatening situations, such as infection and sepsis. The past four decades, however, have witnessed significant advances in lead extraction technology, resulting in more efficacious techniques and tools, providing the skilled extractor with a well-equipped armamentarium. With the development of the discipline, we have witnessed a growth in the community of TLE experts coincident with a marked decline in the incidence of procedure-related morbidity and mortality, with recent registries at high-volume centers reporting high success rates with exceedingly low complication rates. Future developments in lead extraction are likely to focus on new tools that will allow for us to provide comprehensive device management, develop alternative systems for extraction training, and focus on the design of new leads conceived to facilitate future extraction.

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Approach for Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Feasible Technique in High-Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the overall safety, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remains a challenging procedure with inherent risks, where surgery can still be required in elective cases. In this study, we report our experience with a minimally invasive "hybrid" approach, defined as a procedure performed by an electrophysiologist with the support of a cardiac surgeon in the same operative session.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reported 12 cases of planned hybrid lead extraction; minithoracotomy and thoracoscopy were performed on 10 (83%) and 2 (17%) patients, respectively. A total of 25 leads out of 27 (median lead age 19 years) were successfully extracted with laser, mechanical or combined transvenous sheath. In 3 patients, the direct monitoring of vascular and myocardial integrity allowed for prompt treatment of potential vascular injury during the lead extraction maneuvers. Mean in-hospital stay was 4 ± 2 days. There were no major intraoperative complications and no deaths occurred after 30 days' follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid approach, with minithoracotomy or thoracoscopy, is feasible and it might increase the safety in the most challenging TLE procedures: the minimally invasive surgical intervention allows for continuous monitoring of the critical cardiac structures and prompt treatment of potential complications.

Lead Extraction for Treatment of Cardiac Device Infection: A 20-Year Single Centre Experience

BACKGROUND

Infection is one of the most feared complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices. We report microbiology, antimicrobial therapy and infection recurrence in patients with cardiac device infection (CDI) treated with transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a single centre over a 20-year period.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of consecutive patients undergoing TLE for CDI by a single operator at a single high volume centre. Retrospective analysis of patient characteristics, microbiology, outcomes and infection recurrence was performed.

RESULTS

Between May 1992 to March 2012, 348 patients underwent extraction due to localised or systemic infection. Seven hundred and twenty leads were extracted from these patients. The mean follow-up was 5.5+/-4.9 years. Staphylococcal species accounted for 81% of CDI. A difference is seen in infection onset for device revision compared with initial implants [median 10 months vs 24 months, P=0.0001]. Duration of antibiotics therapy depended on the nature of the CDI (21 days post TLE for systemic vs. 10 days for localised infection, P < 0.0001). There was comparable mortality in the 37 (11.2%) patients who did not have a replacement device compared with a replacement (30% vs 29%, P=0.9). Retained lead fragments are a risk factor for CDI recurrence (20.8% recurrence in retained fragments vs 4.3% in complete removal, P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Cardiac device infection can be successfully treated with a combination of TLE and antibiotic therapy. Device therapy can be safely withdrawn in some patients. Retained lead fragments are a risk factor for recurrent CDI following extraction.

Different types of tricuspid flail: Case reports and review of the literature

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common Doppler echocardiographic finding resulting from either intrinsic valve abnormalities or functional malcoaptation of structurally normal valves. TR caused by flail leaflets is most often post-traumatic, is caused by endocarditis or is a consequence of a myxomatously degenerated valve. The clinical presentation is severe and is characterized by excess mortality and high morbidity. Flail leaflets are reliably diagnosed using 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional echocardiography.

Management of Cardiac Electronic Device Infections: Challenges and Outcomes

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is an increasing problem. Reasons for this are uncertain, but likely relate to an increasing proportion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices implanted, as well as implantations in 'higher risk' candidates, i.e. patients with heart failure, diabetes and renal failure. Challenges within the field of CIED infections are multiple with prevention being the most important challenge. Careful prescription of CIED treatment and careful patient preparation before implantation is important. Diagnosis is often difficult and delayed by subtle signs of infection. Treatment of CIED infection includes complete system removal in centres experienced in CIED extraction and prolonged antibiotic therapy. Meticulous planning and preparation before system extraction and later CIED re-implantation is essential for better patient outcome. Future strategies for reducing CIED infection should be tested in sufficiently powered, multicentre, randomised controlled trials.

Early Performance and Safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacemaker in Pigs

BACKGROUND

The Micra® Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) is a miniaturized single-chamber pacemaker system that is delivered via catheter through the femoral vein. In this study, the electrical performance was compared between the TPS and a traditional leaded pacemaker. In addition, the safety profile of the two systems was compared by thorough monitoring for a number of adverse events.

METHODS

The TPS was implanted in the right ventricular apex of 10 Yucatan mini pigs and a Medtronic single-lead pacemaker (SLP) was implanted in the right ventricular apex of another 10 pigs and connected to a traditional pacemaker. The electrical performance of all devices was monitored for 12 weeks. The safety profile of each system was characterized using x-ray, computed tomography, ultrasound, blood work, and necropsy to monitor for a variety of adverse events.

RESULTS

At implant the mean pacing thresholds were 0.58 ± 0.17 V @0.24 ms and 0.75 ± 0.29 V @0.21 ms for the TPS and the SLP respectively. After 12 weeks, mean thresholds were 0.94 ± 0.46 V and 1.85 ± 0.75 V (P < 0.0001). There were two pulmonary emboli that were small and past the tertiary branch, and one occurred in each arm. There were also two infections with one in each arm. There were no dislodgements (macro or micro), tissue injury, tamponade, or valve injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, despite the 10-fold size reduction of the Micra TPS, it appears to perform similarly and have a similar safety profile to a traditional pacemaker system.

Lead extraction using a laser system: Techniques, efficacy, and limitations

Transvenous lead extraction is becoming popular in Japan since the approval of laser extraction system in 2010. The laser system seems to be the standard method used by most physicians, owing to its efficacy and ease of handling. The efficacy and safety of this technology has been well proven in many studies and the data suggest that it can be used for Japanese patients safely. However, lead extraction can cause serious complications. Thus, it is important to learn the limitations as well as the basic techniques and efficacy of this procedure.

Endocardial Lead Extraction in the Polish Registry - clinical practice versus current Heart Rhythm Society consensus

INTRODUCTION

Over the last 10 years, there has been an increasing number of patients with pacemaker (PM) and cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). This study is a retrospective analysis of indications for endocardial pacemaker and ICD lead extractions between 2003 and 2009 based on the experience of three Polish Referral Lead Extraction Centers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since 2003, the authors have consecutively retrospectively collected all cases and entered the information in the database. All patients which had indication for lead extraction according to Heart Rhythm Society Guidelines were included to final analyze. Between 2003 and 2005, the data were analyzed together. Since 2006, data have been collected and analyzed annually.

RESULTS

In each year, a significant increase in lead extraction was observed. The main indications for LE were infections in 52.4% of patients. Nonfunctioning lead extraction constituted the second group of indications for LE in 29.7% of patients. During the registry period, the percentage of class I indications decreased from 80% in 2006 to only 47% in 2009. On the other hand, increasingly more leads were removed because of class 2, especially class 2b. In 2009, 40% of leads were extracted due to class 2b.

CONCLUSIONS

Polish Registry of Endocardial Lead Extraction 2003-2009, shows an increasing frequency of lead extraction. The main indication for LE is infection: systemic and pocket. An increase in class 2, especially 2b, LE indication in every center during the study period was found.

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.

Legal aspects in implantable defibrillator extraction

At the Institute of Legal Medicine in Chieti, a case of iatrogenic superior vena cava perforation was observed during laser extraction of an infected biventricular implantable cardiac defibrillator. The presentation of this particular case represented a starting point for studying the occurrence of similar complications in literature, since their knowledge and understanding should induce resolution of any organisation problems, aid in increasing physicians' training and impose the availability of cardiac surgeons during such operations.

Initial experience of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead extraction with the new GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheaths

OBJECTIVES

Laser lead extraction is a challenging procedure, especially in patients with old or multiple pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads. The mechanical force is a leading cause of complications during the extraction procedure. Use of new laser sheaths, which deliver a rate of 80 pulses per second, may probably reduce intraoperative adverse events by reduction of extraction force.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and April 2013, 76 PM and ICD leads were treated in 38 patients using GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheaths. Indications for lead removals were pocket infection (42.1%), septicaemia or endocarditis (23.7%), lead dysfunction (31.6%) and upgrade from PM to ICD (2.6%). Data on procedural success rates, intra- and postoperative outcomes, as well as 30-day mortality were collected into a database and analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 62.0 ± 17.7 years (range 18-83), and 73.7% were male. The mean time from initial lead implantation was 96.0 ± 58.3 months (range 24-288). Thirty-seven (48.7%) PM and 39 (51.3%) ICD leads had to be extracted. The mean procedural time was 68.3 ± 27.3 min (range 35-115). Seventy-two of 76 leads (94.8%) were completely removed, partial removal was achieved in 2 (2.6%) leads and a failure of extraction occurred in 2 (2.6%) leads. The overall complication rate was 5.2%, including one major (superior vena cava perforation) (2.6%) and one minor (pocket haematoma) (2.6%) complication. No death occurred during the 30-day follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheath allows safe and effective removal of chronically implanted PM and ICD leads, combining high procedural success with low complication rates.

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker leads in infective endocarditis with vegetations ≥20 mm: our experience

BACKGROUND

According to published evidence, treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) should include complete removal of the system. Several publications have shown that transvenous removal is an effective and safe nonthoracotomy approach in patients with large vegetations, but experiences with vegetations larger than 20 mm have rarely been reported.

HYPOTHESIS

Our aim was to describe our experience in percutaneous removal of CIEDs in patients with IE with large vegetations.

METHODS

The data were collected retrospectively and analyzed prospectively. We evaluated in-hospital morbidity and mortality related to percutaneous removal of vegetations ≥20 mm. This included 8 cases with a follow-up period of 20 months. We removed 100% of leads in the study population.

RESULTS

Two patients experienced minor complications. No patient experienced subclavian vein laceration, hemothorax and lead fracture, or severe tricuspid regurgitation. After the removal procedure, 2 patients had symptoms compatible with pulmonary embolism. Both in-hospital mortality and mortality at follow-up were zero.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvenous extraction of pacing leads with larger vegetations is a feasible technique. There was a tendency toward symptomatic pulmonary embolism in patients with vegetations larger than 20 mm; however, morbidity and mortality were not influenced. We agree with the consensus that this procedure is highly useful and that the selection of the removal techniques will depend not only on the size of vegetation but also on prior cardiopulmonary conditions, concomitant cardiac surgery, atrial septal defect with risk of paradoxical embolism, center experience, and the possibility of complete removal of the device.

Outcome after complete percutaneous removal of infected pacemaker systems and implantable cardiac defibrillators

The mortality of retained, infected pacemaker systems is high. We assessed the safety and rate of relapse of infection after complete percutaneous removal of leads of infected pacemaker systems. None of the 40 subjects experienced procedure-related mortality and there were no cases of relapse after a median duration of follow up of 8 years (range, 3 months to 12 years). Procedure-related complications and other adverse events during therapy are reported. Percutaneous removal of infected pacemakers in conjunction with appropriate antibiotic therapy is safe and effective.

Laser Assistance for Extraction of Chronically Implanted Endocardial Leads: Infectious versus Noninfectious Indications

BACKGROUND

Powered sheaths, including Excimer laser sheaths, were introduced for the removal of transvenous pacing and defibrillator leads. The purpose of this study was to develop an algorithm to better predict which patients are likely to benefit from these devices.

METHODS

We reviewed 283 consecutive patients in whom a total of 500 leads (302 pacing and 198 defibrillator leads) were extracted over a 5-year period at our operative facilities. Laser assist was utilized whenever moderate traction failed.

RESULTS

In 128 patients, 203 leads were removed for noninfectious indication. In 155 patients, 297 leads for infectious indications, including sepsis 22% (111), pocket infection 23% (115), and erosion 14% (71). Laser assistance was required for 6%+/- 5% (+/- 95% confidence interval) of septic leads, 51%+/- 7% of leads associated with erosion or pocket infection and 60%+/- 7% of noninfected leads (P = 0.001). Laser assistance was necessary more often for leads implanted >12 months (53%+/- 5%) than 12 months or less (6%+/- 5%) (P = 0.001) and for ventricular (52%+/- 6%) compared to atrial (35%+/- 7%) leads (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronically implanted leads (>12 months), especially noninfected leads and leads associated with erosion or pocket infection, should be referred for extraction with powered sheaths to ensure successful removal. However, leads that are associated with systemic sepsis can generally be removed without powered sheaths.

Right ventricular enlargement mimicking electrocardiographic left ventricular pacing

Electrocardiographic right bundle branch block morphology during cardiac pacing is occasionally the result of accidental placement of pacemaker or defibrillator leads into the left ventricle. Inadvertent lead placement in the left heart is associated with a risk of systemic embolism. Previous authors have attempted to define safe (right ventricular origin) and unsafe (left ventricular origin) patterns of right bundle branch block during pacing. We report a case of a patient with severe dilated cardiomyopathy and a correctly positioned pacemaker-defibrillator lead in the right ventricular apex, who meets electrocardiographic criteria for lead implantation into the left ventricle.

Successful Pacemaker Lead Implantation via the Subclavian Vein Despite of High Degree Stenosis of the Vein

This case reports on an 81-year-old man with implanted dual-chamber pacemaker for binodal disease who required ventricular lead revision due to loss of ventricular capture. Successful placement of a new lead via the subclavian vein despite of high degree stenosis of the medial part of the vein is described using a very thin bipolar ventricular pacing lead. Currently available pacing electrodes for this purpose are reviewed.

The growing mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are lifesaving devices. Over 100,000 patients received ICDs in 2004 at a cost of $2 billion for the pulse generators alone. Because of expanded indications and coverage by Medicare, the number of ICD implantations and replacements is expected to increase dramatically during the next decade. The average ICD patient at our institution now lives nearly 10 years after the procedure. However, the service life of pulse generators has decreased from 4.7 +/- 1 year for single-chamber units to 4.0 +/- 1 year for dual-chamber devices. This mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of ICDs poses a significant clinical and economic burden that must be addressed. One near-term solution is for manufacturers to provide devices with larger batteries so that most patients can have an ICD pulse generator that lasts a lifetime. For the long-term, more robust or renewable energy sources are needed.