How to select patients for lead extraction

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Pacemaker-Associated Infection

BACKGROUND

Approximately 105 000 cardiac electronic devices are newly implanted in Germany each year. Germany has the highest implantation rate with respect to population of any European country. Infections in cardiac implants are serious complications, with an associated in-hospital mortality of 5-15%. It is thus very important to optimize the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies by which such infections can be detected early and treated effectively.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a search in PubMed, with special attention to the current recommendations of international medical specialty societies.

RESULTS

According to the international literature, the incidence of device-associated infection is 1.7% (in six months) for implanted defibrillators and 9.5% (in two years) for resynchronization devices. No absolute figures on infection rates are available for Germany. Infection can involve either the site where the impulse generator is implanted or the intravascular portion of the electrodes. The most important elements of the diagnostic evaluation are: assessment of the local findings; pathogen identification by culture of peripheral blood, swabs of the infected site, or material recovered at surgery; and transesophageal echocardiography to detect endocarditic deposits on the electrodes or cardiac valves. The treatment consists of appropriate antibiotic administration and the complete removal of all foreign material. These special extractions are generally performed via the transvenous route. With the aid of various sheath systems, the procedure can be carried out safely and effectively, with a success rate above 95% and a complication rate below 3%. The indications for the implantation of a new device after eradication of the infection should be critically reassessed.

CONCLUSION

Untreated infection carries a high mortality. Evaluation and treatment according to a standardized clinical algorithm facilitate correct and timely diagnosis and the choice of an appropriate therapeutic strategy.

Effect of Prior Sternotomy on Outcomes in Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background:

A history of open-heart surgery has been a heavily debated topic in transvenous lead extraction. This study evaluates the impact of prior sternotomy on transvenous lead extraction outcomes.

Methods:

Data for all patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction at a tertiary referral center were prospectively gathered from 2004 to 2017. Relevant clinical information was compared between patients with a history of sternotomy before transvenous lead extraction and those without. After considering baseline differences, multivariate regression, and propensity-matched analysis were performed. Outcome variables included major and minor complication rates, clinical success, and in-hospital mortality as defined by the 2017 Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement.

Results:

Of 1480 patients in the study period, 455 had a prior sternotomy. When compared with patients with no prior sternotomy, those with prior sternotomy were more likely to be older, male, and present with more comorbidities and leads targeted for extraction. No statistical differences were identified in major and minor complication rates ( P =0.75, P =0.41), clinical success rate ( P =0.26), and in-hospital mortality ( P =0.08). In patients with prior sternotomy, there were no instances of pericardial effusion after extraction. Prior sternotomy was not an independent predictor of clinical or procedural outcomes. No associations were elucidated after propensity-matched analysis.

Conclusions:

In a large, single-center series, no differences in clinical or procedural outcomes were elucidated between patients with a history of sternotomy and those without. Patients with sternotomies before lead extraction who experienced vascular or cardiac perforations clinically presented with hemothoraces rather than pericardial effusions.

Overcoming the current issues surrounding device leads: reducing the complications during extraction

INTRODUCTION

The implantation rate of cardiac implantable electronic devices has consistently increased in the last 20 years, as have the related complication rates. The most relevant issue is the removal of pacing and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, which a few months after implantation tend to develop intravascular fibrosis, often making extraction a challenging and risky procedure. Areas covered: The transvenous lead extraction (TLE) scenario is constantly evolving. TLE is a key procedure in lead management strategies. Many efforts have been made to develop new TLE approaches and techniques allowing a safe and effective procedure for patients. The increasing rate of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations and of CIED related complications highlight the importance of TLE. Lead related- and patient-related factors may change the future of extractions. We review the current status of TLE, focusing on the strategies available to perform the optimal procedure in the right patient and reducing procedure related complications. Expert commentary: Understanding the importance of an accurate TLE risk stratification is mandatory to optimize the procedural risk-to-benefits ratio. The use of adequate tools, techniques and approaches, and appropriate training are cornerstones for the achievement of safer procedures.

Long-Range Real Migration of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead

The need for pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead revisions and extractions is steadily increasing. Despite the lack of representative studies, the risk of lead extraction is frequently considered to be lower than leaving nonfunctional leads in situ.

We report the case of a patient who was referred to our institution for exchange of a malfunctioning ICD lead. The diagnostic work-up revealed a long-segment transmural migration of the ICD lead at the site of the subclavian and innominate vein. Due to the unpredictable risk of vein perforation, we abandoned the extraction procedure.

Percutaneous occlusion balloon as a bridge to surgery in a swine model of superior vena cava perforation

BACKGROUND

Superior vena cava (SVC) perforation is a rare but potentially fatal complication of transvenous lead removal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of hemodynamic stabilization using an occlusion balloon during SVC tear in a porcine model.

METHODS

A surgically induced SVC perforation was created in Yorkshire cross swine (n = 7). Three animals were used to develop and test surgical repair methods. Four animals were used to evaluate hemodynamic, behavioral, and neurological effects up to 5 days after SVC tear and repair. An occlusion balloon (Bridge Occlusion Balloon, Spectranetics Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO) was percutaneously delivered through the femoral vein to the location of the injury and inflated. Once hemodynamic control was achieved, the perforation was surgically repaired.

RESULTS

After SVC perforation and clamp release, the rate of blood loss was 7.0 ± 0.8 mL/s. Mean time from SVC tear to occlusion balloon deployment was 55 ± 12 seconds, during which mean arterial pressure decreased from 56 ± 2 to 25 ± 3 mm Hg and heart rate decreased from 76 ± 7 to 62 ± 7 beats/min. After the deployment of the occlusion balloon, the rate of blood loss decreased by 90%, to 0.7 ± 0.2 mL/s. The mean time of balloon occlusion of the SVC was 16 ± 4 minutes and hemodynamic measures returned to baseline levels during this time. Study animals experienced no major complications, demonstrated stable recovery, and exhibited normal neurological function at each postoperative assessment.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular temporary balloon occlusion may be a feasible option to reduce blood loss, maintain hemodynamic control, and provide a bridge to surgery after SVC injury.

Transvenous Lead Extraction for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

This article illustrates the important role that lead extraction plays in the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Individualized care of the patient is paramount when considering lead management strategies. The critical care nurse must have a comprehensive understanding of the indications, procedural considerations, and preprocedural and postprocedural care for patients undergoing lead extraction procedures, thereby improving patient safety and maximizing patient outcomes.

To extract or retain a sterile, nonfunctional lead: the case for extraction

Decision-making regarding extracting or abandoning sterile but nonfunctioning ICD leads has to be individualized. Providing recommendations to patients and their families requires a careful weighing of pros and cons and understanding of the availability of local expertise. Decision models to help with these clinical scenarios have started to become available but remain in their infancy.

Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE)

Infections related to implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are increasing in incidence in the USA and are likely to increase in the UK, because more devices are being implanted. These devices have both intravascular and extravascular components and infection can involve the generator, device leads and native cardiac structures or various combinations. ICED infections can be life-threatening, particularly when associated with endocardial infection, and all-cause mortality of up to 35% has been reported. Like infective endocarditis, ICED infections can be difficult to diagnose and manage. This guideline aims to (i) improve the quality of care provided to patients with ICEDs, (ii) provide an educational resource for all relevant healthcare professionals, (iii) encourage a multidisciplinary approach to ICED infection management, (iv) promote a standardized approach to the diagnosis, management, surveillance and prevention of ICED infection through pragmatic evidence-rated recommendations, and (v) advise on future research projects/audit. The guideline is intended to assist in the clinical care of patients with suspected or confirmed ICED infection in the UK, to inform local infection prevention and treatment policies and guidelines and to be used in the development of educational and training material by the relevant professional societies. The questions covered by the guideline are presented at the beginning of each section.

Surgical management of cardiac implantable electronic device infections

PURPOSE

The infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is a serious and potentially lethal complication. The population at risk is growing, as the device implantation is increasing especially in older patients with associated comorbid conditions. Our purpose was to present the management of this complicated surgical condition and to extract the relevant conclusions.

METHODS

During a 3-year period 1,508 CIED were implanted in our hospital. We treated six cases of permanent pacemaker infection with localized pocket infection or endocarditis. In accordance to the recent AHA/ACC guidelines, complete device removal was decided in all cases. The devices were removed under general anaesthesia, with a midline sternotomy, under extracorporeal circulation on the beating heart. Epicardial permanent pacing electrodes were placed on the right atrium and ventricle before the end of the procedure.

RESULTS

The postoperative course of all patients was uncomplicated and after a follow up period of five years no relapse of infection occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Management protocols that include complete device removal are the only effective measure for the eradication of CIED infections. Although newer technologies have emerged and specialized techniques of percutaneous device removal have been developed, the surgical alternative to these methods can be a safe solution in cases of infected devices.

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.

Complications of cardiac implants: handling device infections

Managing patients with cardiac implantable electrophysiological devices (CIED) infections can be challenging. The first step should be prevention, which involves patient selection, timing of implantation, and the procedure itself. After implantation, a high degree of suspicion should be applied in order to correctly diagnose patients with infected implanted devices. It is necessary to recognize that patients can present with a wide variety of signs and symptoms. Once diagnosed, the next step is determining if it is a local pocket infection or system infection. In almost every patient, in addition to antibiotics, complete removal of ALL hardware is required. Transvenous lead extraction is now safe and effective, but should only be performed at experienced centres with a practiced extraction team, all possible needed equipment, and cardiothoracic surgical backup. After extraction, the indication for CIED therapy should be re-evaluated to determine re-implantation is warranted. Timing of re-implantation depends on a variety of factors such as type of infection or valvular involvement and should be made in concordance with an infectious disease specialist. This review is aimed at introducing the steps needed to manage patients with infected cardiac devices.

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.

Management of a remnant electrode in a patient with cardioverter-defibrillator infection after refusal of intravascular electrode removal

Treatments of choice for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are the removal of the entire CIED system, control of infection, and new device implantation. Occasionally, a complete CIED removal can not be performed for several reasons, such as very old age, severe comobidity, limited life expectancy, or refusal by a patient. We encountered a male patient who developed traumatic CIED infection five years after cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. An intravenous electrode could not be removed by a simple transvenous extraction procedure, and he refused surgical removal of the remnant electrode. After control of local infection, the tips of the electrode were separated and buried between muscles, and the wound was closed with a local flap. CIED infection did not recur for 12 months even without relying on long-term antimicrobial treatment.

Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

Despite improvements in cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) design, application of timely infection control practices, and administration of antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of device placement, CIED infections continue to occur and can be life-threatening. This has prompted the study of all aspects of CIED infections. Recognizing the recent advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, microbiology, management, and prevention of CIED infections, the American Heart Association commissioned this scientific statement to educate clinicians about CIED infections, provide explicit recommendations for the care of patients with suspected or established CIED infections, and highlight areas of needed research.

Successful defibrillator lead remnant extraction from right ventricle using a steerable transseptal sheath and a basket retriever

We present a case of a 73-year-old man with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator pocket erosion and Staphylococcus aureus infection who was admitted to our hospital for lead extraction. During the mechanical extraction procedure, the 12-year-old lead broke and the distal coil was trapped in the right ventricle. After several attempts to grasp the coil using a femoral workstation and various snaring tools failed, a steerable transseptal sheath was placed into the right ventricle via the right femoral vein. The sheath allowed better positioning of the basket retriever and the lead remnant was successfully grasped and extracted with direct traction.

A single-centre experience of over one thousand lead extractions

AIMS

The aim of the study was to present a single-centre experience of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead extraction using different methods, mainly laser-assisted extraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 1032 leads and 647 procedures were gathered. A step-by-step approach using different techniques while performing an ongoing risk-benefit analysis was used. The most common indications were local infection, systemic infection, non-functional lead, elective lead replacement, and J-wire fracture. Mean implantation time for all leads was 69 months and for laser-extracted leads 91 months. Laser technique was used to extract 60% of the leads, 29% were manually extracted, 6% extracted with mechanical tools, 4% were surgically removed, and 0.6% extracted by a femoral approach. Failure rate was 0.7%, and major complication rate was 0.9%. No extraction-related mortality occurred. Median time for laser extraction was 2 min. Long implantation time was not a risk factor for failure or for complication.

CONCLUSION

Pacing and ICD leads can safely, successfully, and effectively be extracted. Leads can often be extracted by a superior transvenous approach; however, open-chest and femoral extractions are still required. Laser-assisted lead extraction proved to be a useful technique to extract leads that could not be removed by manual traction. The results indicate that the paradigm of abandoning redundant leads, instead of removing them, may have to be reconsidered.