Single-coil and dual-coil defibrillator leads and association with clinical outcomes in a complete Danish nationwide ICD cohort

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

Additional coils mitigate elevated defibrillation threshold in right-sided implantable cardioverter defibrillator generator placement: a simulation study

AIMS

The standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator (can) is placed in the left pectoral area; however, in certain circumstances, right-sided cans may be required which may increase defibrillation threshold (DFT) due to suboptimal shock vectors. We aim to quantitatively assess whether the potential increase in DFT of right-sided can configurations may be mitigated by alternate positioning of the right ventricular (RV) shocking coil or adding coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and coronary sinus (CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of CT-derived torso models was used to assess DFT of ICD configurations with right-sided cans and alternate positioning of RV shock coils. Efficacy changes with additional coils in the SVC and CS were evaluated. A right-sided can with an apical RV shock coil significantly increased DFT compared to a left-sided can [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P < 0.001]. Septal positioning of the RV coil led to a further DFT increase when using a right-sided can [26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J, P < 0.001], but not a left-sided can [12.1 (8.1, 17.6) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P = 0.099). Defibrillation threshold of a right-sided can with apical or septal coil was reduced the most by adding both SVC and CS coils [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 6.6 (3.9, 9.9) J, P < 0.001, and 26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 12.1 (5.7, 13.5) J, P < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Right-sided, compared to left-sided, can positioning results in a 50% increase in DFT. For right-sided cans, apical shock coil positioning produces a lower DFT than septal positions. Elevated right-sided can DFTs may be mitigated by utilizing additional coils in SVC and CS.

Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction

AIMS

The subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) may be a valuable option in patients after successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE) without indication for pacemaker therapy and persistent risk of sudden cardiac death. The aim of this study was to evaluate device performance, postoperative outcome, and safety in patients who received a S-ICD after TLE compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients included into our institution's S-ICD database between September 2010 and May 2019 was conducted.The patients were divided in two groups, depending on whether they had received their S-ICD after TLE (n = 31) or de-novo (n = 113).

RESULTS

The TLE group was significantly older with a mean age of 54.3 ± 15.7 versus 46.7 ± 14.4 years; p = .007. Leading S-ICD indication in the TLE group was previous infection (50%), whereas in the de-novo group the S-ICD was primarily chosen due to young patient age (74.6%). Median duration of follow-up was 527.0 versus 472.5 days, respectively; p = .576. Most common complication during follow-up was inappropriate ICD therapy (12.9% vs. 13.3%); p = 1.000. Pocket erosion/infection occurred in 3.2% versus 3.5% with no reported cases of systemic (re-)infection in either group; p = 1.000. All-cause mortality was low (6.2% vs. 2.7%) and entirely unrelated to S-ICD implantation or the device itself; p = .293.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD is a safe and effective alternative for patients after TLE with very similar results regarding device performance and postoperative outcome, when compared to patients who underwent de-novo S-ICD implantation.

Effectiveness and safety of transvenous extraction of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads at single-center experience

The available literature lacks data concerning direct comparison of the effectiveness and safety of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads transvenous extraction. Certainly, additional shocking coil in superior vena cava adds to the amount of metal in the vascular system. Adhesions developing around the superior vena cava coil add to the difficulty of extraction of ICD lead if lead removal is required. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single- and dual-coil ICD leads transvenous extraction using mechanical systems. We performed transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of 197 ICD leads in 196 patients. There were 46 (23.3%) dual-coil leads removed from 46 (23.5%) patients. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 25.0% of patients. The following extracting techniques were used: manual direct traction, mechanical telescopic sheaths, controlled-rotation mechanical sheaths, and femoral approach. Complete ICD lead removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = .41 and 99.3% in single-coil vs 97.8% in dual-coil, P = 0.41, respectively). We did not find significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (2.0% in single-coil vs 4.3% in dual-coil, and 0.7% in single-coil vs 0.0% in dual-coil, P = .58, respectively). There was 1 death associated with the TLE procedure of single-coil lead.This study shows that extraction of dual-coil leads seems to be comparably safe and effective to extraction of single-coil leads. On the other hand, it requires longer fluoroscopy time and frequent utilization of advanced tools.

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates.

CONCLUSION

In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

Overview of Lead Management

Lead management describes a comprehensive approach to cardiac implantable electronic device lead utilization, encompassing lead and device selection, vascular access, implant techniques, handling lead failures and recalls, managing infectious and other complications, and performing device and lead extraction. Device and lead selection should be based on the latest guidelines and the available data to choose the optimal device system for each patient. Lead extraction is a highly specialized procedure and should be carried out by a team of personnel extensively trained in the procedure at centers with cardiac surgical support.

Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry

Aims

Dual-coil leads were traditionally considered standard of care due to lower defibrillation thresholds (DFT). Higher complication rates during extraction with parallel progression in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology raised questions on dual coil necessity. Prior substudies found no significant outcome difference between dual and single coils, although using higher rates of DFT testing then currently practiced. We evaluated the temporal trends in implantation rates of single- vs. dual-coil leads and determined the associated adverse clinical outcomes, using a contemporary nation-wide ICD registry.

Methods and results

Between July 2010 and March 2015, 6343 consecutive ICD (n = 3998) or CRT-D (n = 2345) implantation patients were prospectively enrolled in the Israeli ICD Registry. A follow-up of at least 1 year of 2285 patients was available for outcome analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Single-coil leads were implanted in 32% of our cohort, 36% among ICD recipients, and 26% among CRT-D recipients. Secondary prevention indication was associated with an increased rate of dual-coil implantation. A significant decline in dual-coil leads with reciprocal incline of single coils was observed, despite low rates of DFT testing (11.6%) during implantation, which also declined from 31 to 2%. In the multivariate Cox model analysis, dual- vs. single-coil lead implantation was not associated with an increased risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; P= 0.33], heart failure hospitalization (HR = 1.34; P=0.13), appropriate (HR = 1.25; P= 0.33), or inappropriate ICD therapy (HR = 2.07; P= 0.12).

Conclusion

Real-life rates of single-coil lead implantation are rising while adding no additional risk. These results of single-coil safety are reassuring and obtained, despite low and contemporary rates of DFT testing.

Comparison of single-coil lead versus dual-coil lead of implantable cardioverter defibrillator on lead-related venous complications in a canine model

PURPOSE

Dual- coil lead (DCL) of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is preferred clinically in patients. However, it is related to higher risk of venous stenosis and thrombosis. The present study was done to compare the fibrosis and extraction of the leads between the single-coil lead (SCL) and DCL in animal models.

METHODS

This was a chronic animal study with a follow-up duration of 6 months. Twenty mongrel dogs were randomly divided into DCL group or SCL group. Venography was performed before the sacrifice to evaluate the venous stenosis in vivo. The maximum pulling-out tension of the ICD lead was measured by a tensometer. Hematoxylin-eosin stain and toluidine blue O stain were applied to show the pathological changes of the superior vena cava (SVC) to evaluate the fibrosis and the thickness of the SVC adjacent to the leads.

RESULTS

The DCL group showed higher incidence of venous stenosis (OR = 31.5; 95% CI, 2.35-422.3; p = 0.005). It revealed increased tension to extract the leads in the DCL group (5.96 ± 1.86 vs. 3.68 ± 1.46 N, p = 0.027). The difference of venous wall thickness of SVC was 4.3 ± 0.3 fold-changes between two groups (p = 0.007). Moreover, the degree of venous wall fibrosis in DCL group was more serious than that it in SCL group (3.61 ± 1.26 vs. 1.08 ± 1.35 mm², p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

The DCL was proved to increase thrombosis, fibrosis, and stenosis in the SVC. Likewise, the DCL was mechanically harder to be extracted than the SCL. Our study showed that lead-related complications of the DCLs were higher than those of the SCLs regardless of the equal defibrillation thresholds between them. Results of the present study would help to choose the proper lead which could be removed.

Should Single-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads Be Used in all Patients?

The historical preference for dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads stems from high defibrillation thresholds associated with old device platforms. The high safety margins generated by contemporary devices have rendered the modest difference in defibrillation efficacy between single- and dual-coil leads clinically insignificant. Cohort data demonstrating worse lead extraction outcomes and higher all-cause mortality have brought the incremental utility of an superior vena cava coil into question. This article summarizes the current literature and re-evaluates the utility of dual-coil leads in the context of modern device technology.

Biventricular ICD Placement Percutaneously Via the Iliac Vein: Case Reports and a Review

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been demonstrated to improve symptoms of heart failure. As a result, it has become the standard of care in selected patients, and is commonly completed with three leads placed via an upper-extremity vein. However, in rare situations, such as in the case of superior vena cava occlusion, venous access is not possible via the upper extremity. It is in such instances that alternative means must be sought. Here, two patients who received a CRT defibrillator via an iliac vein approach with a mid-abdominal generator are introduced, and a review of the techniques used is presented. Technical aspects to this approach are discussed, including iliac venous access, defibrillation electrode positioning, coronary sinus access, and lead tunneling to an abdominal generator for patient comfort. This approach should be considered when vascular access is compromised, at least until combined leadless CRT pacing and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices become available and feasible for use.

[ICD in elderly patients]

Treatment with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) represents a prognostic but not symptomatic therapy. It should therefore be restricted to patients where an improvement of prognosis is possible and reasonable. ICD implantation should only be performed in patients with a life expectancy of at least 1 year at reasonable quality of life. The decision in which patient improvement of prognosis is no longer a desirable target is problematic, both medically and ethically. It is not entirely clear in which elderly patient an ICD therapy can convey prognostic benefit despite comorbidity and competitive life-threatening diseases, as it is unclear how old age should be defined. In primary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death, data on a prognostic benefit of the ICD in elderly patients are less clear than in secondary prophylaxis since short-term mortality due to other causes is higher in the elderly. However, elderly ICD patients have a similar rate of appropriate ICD therapy as younger patients. Complications at ICD implantation or long-term lead failure do not occur more frequently in elderly patients and therefore do not represent a reason to withhold ICD implantation in elderly patients or to set an age limit above which ICD implantation should no longer be performed. The ICD indication in elderly patients should be individualized depending on remaining life expectancy, comorbidity, "biological age" and patient preferences which play a particularly important role in elderly patients. Aspects of a potential improvement in quality of life by the ICD which may also serve as a system for antibradycardiac or resynchronization treatment should be included into considerations. Deactivation of at least shock therapy should be discussed in elderly patients fitted with an ICD if the subject is brought up by the patient or if clinical deterioration suggests the need to talk about a "do not resuscitate" order. This talk should be performed before death is imminent and before an electrical storm in terminal illness leads to multiple shocks by the active device.