Extraction of chronically implanted coronary sinus leads active fixation vs passive fixation leads

Hybrid transvenous and surgical approach for the extraction of coronary sinus leads: A case series

Background

Transvenous lead extraction is the standard therapy for cardiac device‐related infection. In some patients, however, a hybrid surgical and transvenous approach may be necessary.

Methods and Results

We present three cases who underwent transvenous lead extraction for an infected CRT‐D system. In all cases the CS lead could not be retrieved transvenously due to extensive fibrosis. The lead was successfully extracted through left minithoracotomy in two patients and midline sternotomy in one patient.

Conclusion

In cases where the coronary sinus lead shows severe fibrosis, a transvenous approach can be used to free the proximal part of the lead, while the distal adhesions can be removed surgically through a limited thoracic incision.

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is considered as more risky. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with infected CRT systems. Methods: Data of 3468 patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center in years 2006−2021 were analyzed. The clinical and procedural parameters as well as the efficacy and safety of TLE were compared between patients with infected CRT and pacemakers (PM) and ICD systems. Results: Infectious indications for TLE occurred in 1138 patients, including 150 infected CRT (112 CRT-D and 38 CRT-P). The general health condition of CRT patients was worse with higher Charlson’s comorbidity index. The number of extracted leads was higher in the CRT group, but implant duration was significantly longer in the PM than in the ICD and CRT groups (98.93 vs. 55.26 vs. 55.43 months p < 0.01). The procedure was longer in duration, more difficult, and more complex in patients with pacemakers than in those in the CRT group. The occurrence of major complications and clinical and procedural success as well as procedure-related death did not show any relationship to the type of CIED device. Mortality at more than one-year follow-up after TLE was significantly higher among patients with CRT devices (22.7% vs. 8.7%) than among those in the PM group. Conclusion: Despite the greater burden of lead and comorbidities, the complexity and efficiency of removing infected CRT systems is no more dangerous than removing other infected systems. The duration of the implant seems to play a dominant role.

An active fixation quadripolar left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy with reduced postoperative complication rates

BACKGROUND

The rate of left ventricular (LV) lead displacement after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains high despite improvements in lead technology. In 2017, a novel quadripolar lead with active fixation technology became available in the UK.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study analyzing device complications in 476 consecutive patients undergoing successful first-time implantation of a CRT device at a tertiary center from 2017 to 2020.

RESULTS

Both active (n = 135) and passive fixation (n = 341) quadripolar leads had similar success rates for implantation (99.3% vs. 98.8%, p = 1.00), although the pacing threshold (0.89 [0.60-1.25] vs. 1.00 [0.70-1.60] V, p = .01) and lead impedance (632 [552-794] vs. 730 [636-862] Ohms, p < .0001) were significantly lower for the active fixation lead. Patients receiving an active fixation lead had a reduced incidence of lead displacement at 6 months (0.74% vs. 4.69%, p = .036). There was no significant difference in the rate of right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) lead displacement between the two groups (RA: 1.48% vs. 1.17%, p = .68; RV: 2.22% vs. 1.76%, p = .72). Reprogramming the LV lead after displacement was unsuccessful in most cases (successful reprogramming: Active fix = 0/1, Passive fix = 1/16) therefore nearly all patients required a repeat procedure. As a result, the rate of intervention within 6 months for lead displacement was significantly lower when patients were implanted with the active fixation lead (0.74% vs. 4.40%, p = .049).

CONCLUSION

The novel active fixation lead in our study has a lower incidence of lead displacement and re-intervention compared to conventional quadripolar leads for CRT.

Injectable conductive hydrogel can reduce pacing threshold and enhance efficacy of cardiac pacemaker

Background: Pacemaker implantation is currently used in patients with symptomatic bradycardia. Since a pacemaker is a lifetime therapeutic device, its energy consumption contributes to battery exhaustion, along with its voltage stimulation resulting in local fibrosis and greater resistance, which are all detrimental to patients. The possible resolution for those clinical issues is an injection of a conductive hydrogel, poly-3-amino-4-methoxybenzoic acid-gelatin (PAMB-G), to reduce the myocardial threshold voltage for pacemaker stimulation. Methods: PAMB-G is synthesized by covalently linking PAMB to gelatin, and its conductivity is measured using two-point resistivity. Rat hearts are injected with gelatin or PAMB-G, and pacing threshold is evaluated using electrocardiogram and cardiac optical mapping. Results: PAMB-G conductivity is 13 times greater than in gelatin. The ex vivo model shows that PAMB-G significantly enhances cardiac tissue stimulation. Injection of PAMB-G into the stimulating electrode location at the myocardium has a 4 times greater reduction of pacing threshold voltage, compared with electrode-only or gelatin-injected tissues. Multi-electrode array mapping reveals that the cardiac conduction velocity of PAMB-G group is significantly faster than the non- or gelatin-injection groups. PAMB-G also reduces pacing threshold voltage in an adenosine-induced atrial-ventricular block rat model. Conclusion: PAMB-G hydrogel reduces cardiac pacing threshold voltage, which is able to enhance pacemaker efficacy.

UK multicenter retrospective comparison of novel active versus conventional passive fixation coronary sinus leads

BACKGROUND

A novel active fixation coronary sinus (CS) lead, Attain Stability (AS), has been released aiming to improve targeted lead positioning. Rather than being wedged into the distal vessel, it relies on a side helix for fixation. We aimed to compare implant procedure parameters and electromechanical stability of the AS lead with passive CS leads.

METHODS

A retrospective study involving six major UK cardiac centers. Patients who received active fixation leads were compared with passive fixation lead recipients in a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was total lead displacements (combined macrodisplacement/microdisplacement, defined as displacements requiring repositioning procedures, an increase in threshold ≥0.5 V or pulse width ≥0.5 ms, or a change in pacing polarity).

RESULTS

A total of 761 patients were included (253 AS leads and 508 passive fixation leads), of which 736 had follow-up data. The primary endpoint rate was 31% (75/241) in the active and 43% (214/495) in the passive group (p = .002). Six patients (2.5%) in the active group and 14 patients (2.8%) in the passive group required CS lead repositioning procedures (p = 0.981). On multivariable analysis, active leads were associated with a reduction in lead displacements, odds ratio 0.66 (95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.95), p = .024. There were differences in favor of passive leads in procedure duration, 120 (96-149) versus 127 (105-155) min (p = .008), and fluoroscopy time, 17 (11-26) versus 18.5 (13-27) min (p = .0022). The median follow-up duration was similar (active vs. passive): 31 (17-47) versus 34 (16-71) weeks, (p = .052).

CONCLUSION

AS CS leads had improved electromechanical stability compared with passive fixation leads, with only minimal increases in implant procedure and fluoroscopy times.

Efficient approach to superior vena cava baffle stenosis following the Mustard procedure: Expanding the role of a mechanical rotating dilator sheath for lead extraction

INTRODUCTION

In adult congenital patients with transposition of the great arteries originally treated with the Mustard (atrial switch) procedure, the most common reason for re-intervention is baffle stenosis. This may be exacerbated by permanent transvenous pacemaker lead placement across the baffle.

CASE REPORT

A 47-year-old female status post Mustard procedure performed at 15 months old presented with a high-grade stenosis of the superior vena cava (SVC) baffle from the SVC to the left atrium, with a nonfunctional permanent pacemaker lead passing through the baffle. A mechanical rotating dilator sheath was used for attempted lead extraction, relieving the baffle stenosis almost completely as a secondary effect, before the placement of a 10 × 27 mm Visipro balloon-expandable stent in the SVC baffle.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the mechanical rotating dilator sheath is an evolving treatment strategy in adult congenital heart disease to minimize the risk of bleeding, trauma to surrounding structures, and death. Its ability to fully alleviate baffle stenosis even when full lead extraction is not feasible or is associated with significant procedural risk, further demonstrates its expanded role in this patient population. A multidisciplinary approach and great diligence must be employed to avoid potential complications.

Performance of a novel active fixation quadripolar left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Attain Stability Quad Clinical Study results

INTRODUCTION

The Medtronic Attain Stability Quad lead is a quadripolar left ventricular (LV) lead with an active fixation helix assembly designed to fixate the lead within the coronary sinus and pace nonapical regions of the LV. The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of this novel active fixation quadripolar LV lead.

METHODS

Patients with standard indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) were enrolled. All patients were followed at 3 and 6 months post-implant and every 6 months thereafter until study closure. Pacing capture thresholds (PCTs) were measured at implant and each follow-up and adverse events (AEs) were recorded upon occurrence.

RESULTS

Of the 440 patients who underwent implant procedures, placement of the Attain Stability Quad lead was successful in 426 (96.8%). LV lead-related complications occurred in 10 patients (2.3%), including LV lead dislodgement in three patients (0.7%). The percentage of patients with at least one LV pacing vector with a PCT ≤2.5 V at a 6-month follow-up was 96.3%. The LV lead was successfully fixated to the prespecified pacing location in 97.4% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This large, multinational study of the Attain Stability Quad lead demonstrated a high rate of implant success with a low complication rate. The active fixation mechanism allowed precise placement of the pacing electrodes at the desired target region with good PCTs and a very low dislodgement rate.

Safety and effectiveness of coronary sinus leads extraction - single high-volume centre experience

Introduction

Transvenous leads extraction (TLE) of permanently implanted coronary sinus (CS) leads is widely believed to present greater risks than the removal of other leads.

Aim

To assess the safety and efficacy of CS leads extraction based on large research material obtained by one operator performing procedures in two TLE centres.

Material and methods

We extracted 408 CS leads from 389 patients, and the results were compared to a control group of 2465 patients who underwent non-CS lead TLE procedures.

Results

There were no significant differences in the clinical success rate (97.9% vs. 98.0%) or the major complication rate (2.1% vs. 1.8%) between the CS and control group. CS lead destination (LV/LA pacing) and tip location (CS ostium/mid CS /CS tributaries) influenced the procedural and radiological success rates and procedural complexity but not the complications. CS lead extraction did not affect the necessity for a cardiosurgical intervention or presence of procedure-related death.

Conclusions

TLE of CS leads can be achieved with a high procedural success rate. The major complication rate is not higher than that seen in non-CS lead extraction patients. More than half of CS leads cannot be removed by simple traction and the use of mechanical sheaths may be necessary. The detachment of CS leads from connective tissue scars in the venous and atrial areas up to the CS ostium is generally sufficient for further removal of the lead using simple traction.

Lead choice in cardiac implantable electronic devices: an Italian survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing)

Background: Few data are available regarding lead preferences of electrophysiologists during cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation. Aim of this survey is to evaluate the leads used, and the reasons behind these choices, in a large population of implanters. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 314 Italian centers with experience in CIED implantation. Results: 103 operators from 100 centers (32% of centers) responded. For atrium, passive leads represented first choice for pacemakers and defibrillators (71% and 64% of physicians, respectively), mainly for safety. For right ventricle, active fixation was preferred (61% and 93% operators in pacemaker and defibrillator patients), for higher versatility in positioning and lower dislodgement risk. For left ventricular stimulation, quadripolar leads were preferred by more than 80% of respondents, for better phrenic nerve and myocardial threshold management; active-fixation leads represent a second choice, in order to prevent or manage dislodgement (78% and 17% of respondents, respectively), but 44% of operators considered them dangerous. Conclusions: The choice of leads is heterogeneous. Trends are toward active-fixation right ventricular leads and passive-fixation atrial leads (particularly in pacemaker patients, considered frailer). For left ventricular stimulation, operators' majority want to disposition all kind of leads, although quadripolar leads are the favorites.

Explanting Chronic Coronary Sinus Leads

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become the gold standard for patients with systolic left ventricular function, left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%, wide complex QRS, and symptomatic heart failure. Annual implantation volume has steadily increased because of expanding indications for CRT. Improved survival resulted in many of these patients having their CRT devices for many years and eventually requiring an increased number of device-related procedures, including coronary sinus lead revisions and replacements following a coronary sinus lead extraction.

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.

Cardiac implantable electronic device lead extraction using the lead-locking device system: keeping it simple, safe, and inexpensive with mechanical tools and local anesthesia

Objective:

We have previously reported our successful approach for percutaneous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction using inexpensive tools, which we have continued over the years. Herein we report the results of the systematic use of a unique stylet, the lead-locking device (LLD), which securely locks the entire lead lumen, aided with non-powered telescoping sheaths in 54 patients to extract 98 CIED leads.

Methods:

This prospective observational clinical study included 38 men and 16 women aged 68.9±13.1 years undergoing lead extraction for device infection (n=46), lead malfunction (n=5), or prior to defibrillator implant (n=3). Leads were in place for 6.7±4.3 years. Infections were more commonly due to Staphylococcus species (n=40). There were 78 pacing (31 ventricular, 37 atrial, 4 VDD, and 6 coronary sinus leads) and 20 defibrillating leads.

Results:

Using simple traction (6 leads) and the LLD stylets (92 leads) aided with telescoping sheaths (15 patients), 96 (98%) leads in 52 (96.3%) patients were successfully removed, with all but one leads removed using a subclavian approach; in 1 patient, the right femoral approach was also required. In 2 patients, distal fragments from one ventricular pacing and one defibrillating lead could not be removed. Finally, lead removal was completely (52/54) (96.3%) or partially (2/54) (3.7%) successful in 54 patients for 96 of 98 leads (98%) without major complications.

Conclusion:

Percutaneous lead extraction can be successful with mechanical tools using the LLD locking stylet aided with non-powered telescoping sheaths through a simplified, safe, and inexpensive procedure using local anesthesia alone.

Coronary Venous Lead Extraction

The increasing number of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices implanted, coupled with the increasing incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, has led to a greater need for extraction of coronary venous pacing leads. The objectives of this study were to review the indications, techniques and published results of coronary venous lead extraction. In this study, we searched PubMed using the search terms "lead extraction," "coronary sinus," "coronary venous," "pacing," and "cardiac resynchronization therapy" for relevant papers. The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched, and personal experience was drawn upon. Published success rates and complications were found to be similar to those reported for non-coronary venous leads in experienced centers. However, reimplantation success differs and can be limited by vessel occlusion postextraction. The available active fixation coronary sinus lead (Attain Starfix™; Medtronic, MN, USA) is a particularly complex lead to extract, whereas limited data on the newer active fixation leads (Attain Stability™, Medtronic, MN, USA) suggest that they are less challenging to remove. The study concluded that coronary venous lead extraction presents unique challenges, especially reimplantation, that require special consideration and planning to overcome.