Comparison of delayed transvenous reimplantation and immediate surgical epicardial approach in pacing-dependent patients undergoing extraction of infected permanent pacemakers

A hazardous collateral pathway following asymptomatic lead-related venous occlusion?

Routine venography should be performed before the device upgrade. Clinicians should not be unconcerned because of the lack of symptoms following lead-related venous occlusion. Knowledge of collateral anatomy is essential for future interventional plans. The venous pathway's return to the right atrium may entail risks to patient outcomes.

Prevention and Risk Assessment of Cardiac Device Infections in Clinical Practice

The implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and defibrillators, has become increasingly prevalent in recent years and has been accompanied by a significant rise in cardiac device infections (CDIs), which pose a substantial clinical and economic burden. CDIs are associated with hospitalizations and prolonged antibiotic therapy and often necessitate device removal, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs worldwide. Approximately 1-2% of CIED implants are associated with infections, making this a critical issue to address. In this contemporary review, we discuss the burden of CDIs with their risk factors, healthcare costs, prevention strategies, and clinical management.

Twenty-four hour continuous transvenous temporary right ventricular pacing in healthy horses

BACKGROUND

The ability to perform transvenous temporary cardiac pacing (TV-TP) is critical to stabilize horses with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias. Reports of successful TV-TP in horses are limited, and only briefly describe short-term pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To describe temporary, medium-term (24 h) transvenous right ventricular pacing in awake horses using a bipolar torque-directed pacing catheter.

ANIMALS

Six healthy adult institutional teaching horses.

METHODS

Prospective experimental study with 2 immediately successive TV-TP lead placements in each horse with a target location of the RV apex. One placement was performed primarily with echocardiographic guidance and 1 primarily with fluoroscopic guidance. In all placements, corresponding images were obtained with both imaging modalities. Horses were then paced for 24 h, unrestricted in a stall with continuous telemetric ECG monitoring. Echocardiographically determined lead position, episodes of pacing failure in the preceding 6 h, and pacing thresholds were recorded every 6 h. Pacing failure was defined as a period of loss of capture longer than 20 s.

RESULTS

Pacing leads were placed with both guidance methods and maintained for 24 h with no complications. Two horses with leads angled caudally in the right ventricular apex had no pacing failure, the remaining 4 horses had varying degrees of loss of capture. Leads located in the right ventricular apex had longer time to pacing failure and lower capture thresholds P < 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Medium-term TV-TP is feasible and has potential for stabilization of horses with symptomatic bradyarrhythmias. Lead position in the right ventricular apex appears optimal. Continuous ECG monitoring is recommended to detect pacing failure.

Safety and Efficacy of a Single Procedure of Extraction and Reimplantation of Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) in Comparison with Deferral Timing: An Observational Retrospective Multicentric Study

(1) Background: Infections are among the most frequent and life-threatening complications of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome and safety of a single-procedure device extraction and contralateral implantation versus the standard-of-care (SoC) two-stage replacement for infected CIEDs. (2) Methods: We retrospectively included 66 patients with CIED infections who were treated at two Italian hospitals. Of the 66 patients enrolled in the study, 27 underwent a single procedure, whereas 39 received SoC treatment. All patients were followed up for 12 months after the procedure. (3) Results: Considering those lost to follow-up, there were no differences in the mortality rates between the two cohorts, with survival rates of 81.5% in the single-procedure group and 84.6% in the SoC group (p = 0.075). (4) Conclusions: Single-procedure reimplantation associated with an active antibiofilm therapy may be a feasible and effective therapeutic option in CIED-dependent and frail patients. Further studies are warranted to define the best treatment regimen and strategies to select patients suitable for the single-procedure reimplantation.

Current Views on Infective Endocarditis: Changing Epidemiology, Improving Diagnostic Tools and Centering the Patient for Up-to-Date Management

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but potentially life-threatening disease, sometimes with longstanding sequels among surviving patients. The population at high risk of IE is represented by patients with underlying structural heart disease and/or intravascular prosthetic material. Taking into account the increasing number of intravascular and intracardiac procedures associated with device implantation, the number of patients at risk is growing too. If bacteremia develops, infected vegetation on the native/prosthetic valve or any intracardiac/intravascular device may occur as the final result of invading microorganisms/host immune system interaction. In the case of IE suspicion, all efforts must be focused on the diagnosis as IE can spread to almost any organ in the body. Unfortunately, the diagnosis of IE might be difficult and require a combination of clinical examination, microbiological assessment and echocardiographic evaluation. There is a need of novel microbiological and imaging techniques, especially in cases of blood culture-negative. In the last few years, the management of IE has changed. A multidisciplinary care team, including experts in infectious diseases, cardiology and cardiac surgery, namely, the Endocarditis Team, is highly recommended by the current guidelines.

Clinical profile and outcomes of semi-permanent pacing in a tertiary care institute in southern India

BACKGROUND

Semi-permanent pacing (SPP) includes the placement of a permanent lead through the internal jugular vein and connection to a pulse generator on the skin outside the venous access site.

AIM

To evaluate the clinical profile and outcomes of semi-permanent pacing in a tertiary care institute in Southern India.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study. All patients admitted and requiring management with semi-permanent pacing from January 2017 to June 2020 were included.

RESULTS

From January 2017 to June 2020, 20 patients underwent semi-permanent pacing (SPP) with a median age of 54 (21-74) years. Males comprised a majority of the patients (55%). Hypertension was noted in 50% of patients and 30% were diabetic. The right internal jugular vein was the most common access in 95% of patients. The most common indication for semi-permanent pacing was pocket site infection in 30% of patients. There were no procedural complications. The median duration on SPP was 7 (5-14) days and the median duration of hospital stay was 13 (8-21) days. Permanent pacemaker implantation was done in 55% of patients. Mortality in our study group was 15% with 10% dying due to cardiogenic shock (post resuscitated cardiac arrest) and 5% dying due to non-cardiac cause (Epidural hematoma).

CONCLUSION

In our study, semi-permanent pacing was noted to be a safe procedure and was more commonly indicated in emergent conditions with complete heart block secondary to underlying reversible causes and in the management of pocket site infection.

A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are morbid, costly, and difficult to manage. This review explores the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of CIED infections. Diagnostic accuracy has been improved through increased awareness and improved imaging strategies. Pocket or bloodstream infection with virulent organisms often requires complete system extraction. Emerging prophylactic interventions and novel devices have expanded preventative strategies and options for re-implantation. A clear and nuanced understanding of CIED infection is important to the practicing electrophysiologist.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

Re-implantation after extraction of a cardiac implantable electronic device

Background: With increasing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations, growing number of extractions of leads and devices are noted, mainly for complications such as infection and lead dysfunction. The optimal timing for re-implantation remains uncertain. We  investigated the time to eventual re-implantation of CIEDs in the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium.Methods: All consecutive patients, referred for extraction between January 2005 and December 2016, were analysed for the timing of eventual re-implantation.Results: Two-hundred and forty-three patients were included. Mean follow-up was 77 ± 37 months. Global re-implantation rate was 89.3%: 100% for lead dysfunctions versus 80.7% following infections. Median time to re-implantation (TTR) was 0 [0-111] days and 8.5 [0-3025] days, respectively (p < .001). Globally 0 [0-3025] days. Re-implantation was performed in 83.2% of pacemaker patients, compared to 95.8% of defibrillator patients (p < .001). Median TTR was 4 [0-3025] days and 0 [0-345] days, respectively (p < .001). In AV-block related pacemaker indications, 90% were re-implanted, compared to 78% for symptomatic indications (p = .09). Median TTR was 2 [0-3025] and 6 [0-2047] days, respectively (p = .02). Re-implantation was performed in 96.7% of defibrillator patients with a secondary prevention indication, compared to 94.7% with primary prevention indication (p = .59). Median TTR was 0 [0-164] and 0 [0-345] days, respectively (p = .472).Conclusions: Ten percent of CIEDs is not re-implanted after extraction. CIEDs are re-implanted more often and earlier after extraction for lead dysfunction than after extraction for infectious reasons. Pacemakers are re-implanted less and later than defibrillators. Re-implantation is performed faster in stronger clinical CIED indications.

A Ghost Left Behind After Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Finding to be Feared

Patient: Male, 72-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Infective endocarditis

Symptoms: Falls • weakness

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Removal of pacemaker

Specialty: Cardiology

Timing of device reimplantation and reinfection rates following cardiac implantable electronic device infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Initial management of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection requires removal of the infected CIED system and treatment with systemic antibiotics. However, the optimal timing to device reimplantation is unknown. The aim of this study was to quantify the incidence of reinfection after initial management of CIED infection, and to assess the effect of timing to reimplantation on reinfection rates.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of studies published up to February 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (a) documented CIED infection, (b) studies that reported the timing to device reimplantation and (c) studies that reported the proportion of participants with device reinfection. A meta-analysis of proportions using a random effects model was performed to estimate the pooled device reinfection rate.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the rate of CIED reinfection. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 280 screened studies, 8 met inclusion criteria with an average of 96 participants per study (range 15-220 participants). The pooled incidence rate of device reinfection was 0.45% (95% CI, 0.02% to 1.23%) per person year. A longer time to device reimplantation >72 hours was associated with a trend towards higher rates of reinfection (unadjusted incident rate ratio 4.8; 95% CI 0.9 to 24.3, p=0.06); however, the meta-regression analysis was unable to adjust for important clinical covariates. There did not appear to be a difference in reinfection rates when time to reimplantation was stratified at 1 week. Heterogeneity was moderate (I²=61%).

CONCLUSIONS

The incident rate of reinfection following initial management of CIED infection is not insignificant. Time to reimplantation may affect subsequent rates of device reinfection. Our findings are considered exploratory and significant heterogeneity limits interpretation.

PROSERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD4201810960.

Surgical extraction of a giant intracardiac lead vegetation and epicardial pacemaker reimplantation in a pacemaker-dependent hemodialysis patient

A 57-year old male with a dual-chamber pacemaker and 40-year history of hemodialysis and autoinflammatory disease developed a large, 35 × 35 mm intracardiac vegetation on the right ventricular pacing lead. As this mass was large enough to occlude the tricuspid valve orifice, transvenous lead extraction was deemed unsuitable. Instead, an urgent surgical extraction of the whole pacemaker system, including leads and vegetation, was conducted under cardiopulmonary bypass. In light of a high risk of recurrent blood infection, a new dual-chamber pacing system was then immediately re-established using epicardial pacing leads on the right atrium and ventricle instead of transvenous electrodes. This case of a rare, giant intracardiac lead vegetation lacked most known causal factors, except for renal failure, but a possibly immunosuppressed cardiac microenvironment due to long-term steroid therapy may have been an important influencing factor.

Concurrent Epicardial Cardiac Resynchronization at Time of Complicated Biventricular Device Extraction: A Potentially Life-Saving Option

A 60-year-old man with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) lead endocarditis underwent transvenous lead extraction that was complicated by coronary sinus laceration and tamponade. Severe left ventricular dysfunction and unstable hemodynamic parameters persisted after emergent sternotomy, drainage, and repair. Reinstitution of cardiac resynchronization therapy with an epicardial device resulted in immediate hemodynamic improvement. Our case illustrates the potentially life-saving nature of single-stage extraction and reimplantation in resynchronization responders.

A Review of Temporary Permanent Pacemakers and a Comparison with Conventional Temporary Pacemakers

Temporary cardiac pacing is commonly used in patients with life-threatening bradycardia and serves as a bridge to implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM). For years, passive fixation leads have been used for this purpose, offering the advantage of that they can be placed at bedside. The downside, however, is that patients must remain on telemetry and bed rest until lead removal due to the risk of displacement and failure to capture. Even then, the latter cannot always be prevented. Temporary cardiac pacing with passive fixation leads has also been related to a higher incidence of infection and venous thrombosis, delayed recovery, and increased length of stay. Thus, over the last couple of decades, pacemaker leads with an active fixation mechanism have become increasingly used. This is known as a temporary PPM (TPPM) approach, which carries a very low risk of lead dislodgement and allows patients to ambulate, among other advantages. Here, we performed a review of the literature on the use of TPPMs and their advantages over temporary pacemakers with passive fixation leads and in order to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of active and passive fixation leads in temporary cardiac pacing. Most articles found were case reports and case series, with few prospective studies. We excluded documents such as editorials and image case reports that provided little to no useful information for the final analysis. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and other databases and articles written in English and Spanish were considered. Articles were screened up to January 2017. The search keywords used were "temporary permanent pacemaker," "external permanent pacemaker," "active fixation lead," "explantable pacemaker," "hybrid pacing," "temporary permanent generator," "prolonged temporary transvenous pacing," and "semipermanent pacemaker." A total of 24 studies with 770 patients were ultimately included in our review. The age group was primarily above the sixth decade of life, with the exception of one that included pediatric patients. Indications for pacing included device infection, sick sinus syndrome, atrioventricular block, ventricular tachycardia, and bradyarrhythmias associated with systemic illness. The duration of TPPM usage varied from a few days up to 336 days. A total of 18 (2.3%) TPPM-related infections were reported, in which the duration of TPPM use was less than 30 days in at least 15 patients. Loss of capture was documented in only eight patients (1.0%). Complication rates varied from 0% to 30%, with the highest event rates being present in studies that used femoral venous access. In conclusion, although no high-quality studies were identified in our literature search, we found the data retrieved suggest the association of overall favorable outcomes with the use of TPPMs. Device placement and removal typically involve a simple procedure, although fluoroscopy, usually applied in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, is necessary for implantation, which could represent an additional risk in a patient who is already hemodynamically unstable. When possible, a screw-in-lead pacemaker should be used for temporary pacing.

Implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker with epicardial leads in adults using a minimally invasive subxyphoid approach

BACKGROUND

Implantation of transvenous pacemaker systems is a standard method used to treat patients with bradycardia. There are some clinical settings in which that method cannot be used despite existing indications (such as developmental defects of the cardiovascular system and limited venous access or infections). In such cases, an epicardial pacing system may be implanted with cardiac surgery techniques, at a cost of certain surgical risks. The least invasive approach is subxyphoid, but it traditionally allows to place only a ventricular lead and achieve a single-chamber VVI pacing system.

AIM

The aim of our study was to determine the feasibility of subxyphoid implantation of dual-chamber pacing systems using thoracoscopic tools, as well as to and examine the short- and mid-term outcomes of such procedures.

METHODS

Patients were qualified for an epicardial pacemaker system in case of absolute indications for permanent pacing therapy and coexisting contraindications for a transvenous system. DDD systems were implanted in 10 consecutive patients, in general anesthesia, in a cardiac surgery operating room, using subxyphoid access to pericardial space and a standard set of minimally invasive thoracoscopic tools.

RESULTS

Implantation of a dual-chamber pacing system using the above approach was successful in all attempts. No serious complications were observed. Pacing and sensing parameters were appropriate at implantation and remained such during the follow-up of 2-27 months.

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a dual-chamber pacing system using a minimally invasive subxyphoid approach is feasible. Appropriate pacing and sensing values may be obtained and they remain stable during follow-up.

Comparison of epicardial vs. endocardial reimplantation in pacemaker-dependent patients with device infection

Aims

Reimplantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) after extraction due to device infection is a major issue in pacemaker-dependent patients. We compared in-hospital and long-term outcomes with two techniques: epicardial reimplantation (EPI) before CIED extraction and temporary pacing (TP) with a view to delayed endocardial reimplantation.

Methods and results

Two cohorts of consecutive pacemaker-dependent patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction at our tertiary centre were included in this retrospective cohort study. According to successive policies, either the EPI or the TP approach was used. In-hospital complications occurred at similar rates in the EPI (n = 59) and TP (n = 52) cohorts (37.3% vs. 32.7%, respectively; P = 0.61). Thirteen (25.0%) patients in the TP cohort eventually were reimplanted epicardially, mainly because of infection of the temporary lead. Finally, 65 patients were discharged with an epicardial device and 37 with an endocardial device. Median follow-up was 41.7 (interquartile range 34.1-51.5) months. No difference was observed in long-term mortality according to the reimplantation strategy, but use of TP was associated with a reduced risk of late endocarditis and device reintervention (hazard ratio (HR) 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.069, P = 0.01), whereas epicardial device reimplantation was associated with an increased risk (HR 3.62, 95% CI 1.07-12.21, P = 0.04).

Conclusion

We observed similar in-hospital outcomes in our EPI and TP cohorts. Twenty-five percent of the patients initially paced by a TP strategy finally needed an epicardial device, mainly because of infection of their TP lead. Use of TP resulted in lower rates of late endocarditis and device reintervention.

Reimplantation After Lead Removal

The number of implanted cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly in the last 30 years, which has led to an upsurge in CIED complications, such as infection and lead malfunction requiring CIED extraction. The decision-making process of CIED reimplantation requires meticulous planning that includes careful consideration of several aspects: the reason for extraction, the indication for CIED reimplantation, patients' wishes, timing of reimplantation, the need for a bridging device, and the type and location of device to be reimplanted. In this article, the authors review this decision-making process and the necessary steps to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

A combined epicardial implantation and subsequent extraction strategy in pacemaker device infection in pacemaker-dependent patients

INTRODUCTION

Treatment infections is challenging in pacemaker (PM) dependent patients. We proposed a novel implantation strategy for this group of patients.

METHODS

Patients who were PM dependent and were admitted with a PM infection received a combined procedure of left ventricular (LV) epicardial implantation of a PM lead and subsequent extraction of the infected system. No temporary pacing wire was used and the PM generator was placed in the left flank.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2015 we treated 16 patients who were PM dependent and with a PM infection. The majority of patients were male (81% [13/16]) and the median age was 71 years (50-91). The cause of infection was valvular endocarditis in 38% (6/16), lead infection in 25% (4/16), and isolated pocket infection in 38% (6/16). All patients underwent epicardial implantation of a LV lead (1084T bipolar lead; St. Jude Medical Myodex, St. Paul, MN, USA) and extraction of the infected device. There was no occurrence of periprocedural mortality and no postprocedural tamponades. There was one complication in the form of a hemorrhage at the infected device extraction site. In the median follow-up period of 17 months there were four of 16 deaths, none of which were attributable to epicardial LV implantation. LV-lead threshold was 1.1V (±0.7V) upon implantation that increased to 1.2V (±0.6V) at 0.4-ms pulse duration. There were no reinfections of the epicardial lead or device.

CONCLUSION

Epicardial left ventricle PM implantation and subsequent extraction of an infected PM in PM-dependent patients is feasible and safe with good long-term outcome.

Temporary external implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as a bridge to reimplantation after infected device extraction

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and endovascular infection represent a difficult management group. The explantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system deprives the patient of the protection against life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In this study, we describe feasibility and clinical outcomes of bridging with temporary dual-coil ICD lead and external ICD following the extraction of a CIED due to endovascular infection and compare the performance of this approach to other available options.

Low lateral thoracic site for cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: A viable alternative in patients with limited access options after infected device extraction

BACKGROUND

Device reimplantation after extraction because of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in pacemaker-dependent patients can be challenging in individuals with limited access options.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe a straightforward, low lateral thoracic implantation technique for patients with a patent axillary vein but unavailable bilateral pectoral sites.

METHODS

Nine pacemaker-dependent patients (mean age 70 ± 13 years, 7 male) who underwent CIED extraction and low lateral thoracic reimplantation in whom bilateral pectoral sites were unavailable were included in the study.

RESULTS

Extraction was performed a median of 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-13) days before CIED reimplantation (4 dual-chamber, 3 single-chamber, 2 cardiac resynchronization therapy). The new generator was implanted in the low lateral thoracic region ipsilateral to the extracted generator in 7 patients (78%) and contralateral in 2 patients (22%), via a subcutaneous pocket in 6 (67%) and submuscular pocket in 3 (33%). Median procedure duration was 85 (IQR 61-116) minutes, median fluoroscopy time was 7.2 (IQR 5.7-10.9), minutes and median fluoroscopy exposure was 26.0 (IQR 10.0-110.5) mGy. No acute complications occurred. Over median follow-up of 92 (IQR 31-131) days, 1 patient experienced right atrial lead dislodgment (122 days postimplantation) requiring lead revision. No patients experienced recurrent device infection.

CONCLUSION

In pacemaker-dependent patients with limited prepectoral and vascular access options, a low lateral thoracic implantation site is a viable alternative to surgical epicardial or femoral pacing systems. This simple implantation technique is a safe and effective option in selected patients who require a single-chamber, dual-chamber, or biventricular pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.