Chronic venous obstruction during cardiac device revision: Incidence, predictors, and efficacy of percutaneous techniques to overcome the stenosis

The axillary vein puncture for implantable cardiac defibrillator implantation: 14 years of experience. Analysis of the results

BACKGROUND

Axillary vein puncture (AVP) is a valid alternative to Subclavan vein puncture for leads insertion in cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, that may reduce acute and delayed complications. Very few data are available about ICD recipients. A simplified AVP technique is described.

METHODS

All the patients who consecutively underwent "de novo" ICD implantation, from March 2006 to December 2020 at the University of Verona, were considered. Leads insertion was routinely performed through an AVP, according to a simplified technique. Outcome and complications have been retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 1711 consecutive patients. Out of 1711 patients, 38 (2.2%) were excluded because they were implanted with Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead. Out of 1673 ICD implantations, 963 (57.6%) were ICD plus cardiac resynchronization therapy, 434 (25.9%) were dual-chamber defibrillators, and 276 (16.5%) were single-chamber defibrillators, for a total of 3879 implanted leads. The AVP success rate was 99.4%. Acute complications occurred in 7/1673 (0.42%) patients. Lead failure (LF) occurred in 20/1673 (1.19%) patients. Comparing the group of patients with lead failure with the group without LF, the presence of three leads inside the vein was significantly associated with LF, and the multivariate analysis confirmed three leads in place as an independent predictor of LF.

CONCLUSION

AVP, according to our simplified technique, is safe, effective, has a high success rate, and a very low complication rate. The incidence of LF was exceptionally low. The advantages of AVP are maintained over time in a population of ICD recipients.

When and how to perform venoplasty for lead placement

Because of the increasing use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) with one or more intracardiac electrodes, the rate of lead failure is increasing. Moreover, upgrade of the CIED frequently is indicated for cardiac resynchronization therapy or other reasons. Both these situations require a new intervention, preferably using ipsilateral venous access. However, venous obstruction after CIED insertion occurs in 10%-20% of patients and poses a major obstacle for implantation of additional leads. Possible solutions include lead extraction, contralateral lead insertion, and venoplasty. Preprocedural venoplasty is associated with the lowest short- and long-term risks. Here we describe a step-by-step approach to this technique, which can be introduced and safely performed in most interventional catheterization laboratories.

Harnessing cell reprogramming for cardiac biological pacing

Electrical impulses from cardiac pacemaker cardiomyocytes initiate cardiac contraction and blood pumping and maintain life. Abnormal electrical impulses bring patients with low heart rates to cardiac arrest. The current therapy is to implant electronic devices to generate backup electricity. However, complications inherent to electronic devices remain unbearable suffering. Therefore, cardiac biological pacing has been developed as a hardware-free alternative. The approaches to generating biological pacing have evolved recently using cell reprogramming technology to generate pacemaker cardiomyocytes in-vivo or in-vitro. Different from conventional methods by electrical re-engineering, reprogramming-based biological pacing recapitulates various phenotypes of de novo pacemaker cardiomyocytes and is more physiological, efficient, and easy for clinical implementation. This article reviews the present state of the art in reprogramming-based biological pacing. We begin with the rationale for this new approach and review its advances in creating a biological pacemaker to treat bradyarrhythmia.

Prevalence, management, and prediction of venous access site occlusion in patients undergoing lead revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Implantable electronic cardiac devices (CIED) have emerged as an essential component in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure. Due to increased life expectancy, expanding indications and limited technical survival, an increasing number of revision procedures can be anticipated. Venous access site occlusion (VASO) is the main obstacle during revision surgery. In this retrospective study we evaluated the prevalence, predictive parameters and operative management of venous access site occlusion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 01/2016 and 12/2020 304 patients underwent lead revision surgery of transvenous CIED in our department. Prevalence of VASO was 25.7% (n = 78), one patient was symptomatic. Independent predicting clinical parameters were male sex (2.86 (1.39-5.87), p < 0.01) and lead age (1.11 (1.05-1.18), p < 0.01)). Revision surgery despite VASO was successful in 97.4% (n = 76) without prolongation of the total surgery time or higher complication rates. Yet, lead extraction was possible in 92% of patients with VASO vs. 98.2% of patients without VASO (p 0.01).

CONCLUSION

VASO is a frequent condition in patients undergoing lead revision surgery, but successful revision is feasible in most cases without preceding lead extraction. However, the lower success rates of lead extractions may be prognostically relevant, especially for younger patients.

Severity and Extent of Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in More Than 3000 Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background

Lead-related venous stenosis/obstruction (LRVSO) may be a major challenge in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) when device upgrade, insertion of central lines, or creation of an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis is indicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent and severity of LRVSO.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3002 venograms from patients awaiting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to assess the occurrence, severity, and extent of LRVSO.

Results

Mild LRVSO occurred in 19.9%, moderate in 20.7%, severe in 19.9% and total venous occlusion in 22.5% of the patients. Moderate/severe stenosis or total occlusion of the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins was found in 38.2% and 22.5% of the patients, respectively. LRSVO was not detected in 16.9% of the patients. Moderate and severe superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction and total SVC occlusion were rare (0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Lead insertion on the left side of the chest contributed to an increased risk of LRVSO compared to right-sided implantation. Major thoracic veins on the opposite side may be narrowed in varying degrees.

Conclusion

A total of 60% of the patients with pacemaker or high-voltage leads have an advanced form of LRVSO. Any attempt to insert new pacing leads, central lines, venous ports, or catheters for hemodialysis, or to create dialysis fistula on the same side as the existing lead should be preceded by venography. Furthermore, venography may provide useful information, if it is planned to implant the lead or the catheter on the opposite side of the chest.

New Insights in Central Venous Disorders. The Role of Transvenous Lead Extractions

Over the last decades, the implementation of new technology in cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators as well as the increasing life expectancy have been associated with a higher incidence of transvenous lead complications over time. Variable degrees of venous stenosis at the level of the subclavian vein, the innominate trunk and the superior vena cava are reported in up to 50% of implanted patients. Importantly, the number of implanted leads seems to be the main risk factor for such complications. Extraction of abandoned or dysfunctional leads is a potential solution to overcome venous stenosis in case of device upgrades requiring additional leads, but also, in addition to venous angioplasty and stenting, to reduce symptoms related to the venous stenosis itself, i.e., the superior vena cava syndrome. This review explores the role of transvenous lead extraction procedures as therapeutical option in case of central venous disorders related to transvenous cardiac leads. We also describe the different extraction techniques available and other clinical indications for lead extractions such as lead infections. Finally, we discuss the alternative therapeutic options for cardiac stimulation or defibrillation in case of chronic venous occlusions that preclude the implant of conventional transvenous cardiac devices.

Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis and Asymptomatic Vein Occlusion in Patients With Transvenous Leads: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims: The presence of transvenous leads for cardiac device therapy may increase the risk of venous thromboembolisms. The epidemiology of these complications has not yet been determined systematically. Therefore, this study aims to determine (I) the incidence of symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) and (II) the prevalence of asymptomatic upper extremity vein occlusion in patients with transvenous leads, both after the initial 2 months following lead implantation.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched until March 31, 2020 to identify studies reporting incidence of UEDVT and prevalence of asymptomatic vein occlusion after the initial 2 months after implantation in adult patients with transvenous leads. Incidence per 100 patient years of follow-up (PY) and proportions (%) were calculated to derive pooled estimates of incidence and prevalence.

Results: Search and selection yielded 20 and 24 studies reporting on UEDVT and asymptomatic vein occlusion, respectively. The overall pooled incidence of UEDVT was 0.9 (95% CI 0.5–1.4) per 100PY after 2 months after lead implantation. High statistical heterogeneity was present among studies (I² = 82.4%; P = < 0.001) and only three studies considered to be at low risk of bias. The overall pooled prevalence of asymptomatic upper extremity vein occlusion was 8.6% (95% CI 6.0–11.5) with high heterogeneity (I² = 81.4%; P = <0.001). Meta-regression analysis showed more leads to be associated with a higher risk of UEDVT.

Conclusion: Transvenous leads are an important risk factor for symptomatic UEDVT, which may occur up to multiple years after initial lead implantation. Existing data on UEDVT after lead implantation is mostly of poor quality, which emphasizes the need for high quality prospective research. Asymptomatic vein occlusion is present in a substantial proportion of patients and may complicate any future lead addition.

Clinical Trial Registration: (URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178136, Identifier: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178136).

Fusion cardiac resynchronization therapy in an left ventricular assist device patient from two devices and crossing leads: a case report

Background

Cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIED) have significantly improved the survival and quality of life in heart failure patients. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have a major role in patients with moderate to severe heart failure symptoms, the role of these devices in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is not yet well defined. The burden of CIED-related procedures in patients with an LVAD is high. The price of lead malfunctions and pocket complications requires creative approaches to tackle CIED-related issues in this patient population.

Case summary

Here, we describe the clinical course of a 67-year-old ventricular pacing dependent LVAD patient with an ICD indication based on recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardias and a CRT indication due to previous deterioration of (right-sided) heart failure in the absence of biventricular pacing. We were confronted with impending right ventricular lead failure and bilateral venous access problems due to chronic subclavian vein occlusion in a patient with a total of five transvenous leads, therapeutic anticoagulation, and pronounced thoracic collaterals. We sought for a creative solution to be able to deliver effective biventricular fusion pacing with the existing leads from two contralateral pulse generators resulting in biventricular fusion pacing. This provided the solution to deliver effective CRT.

Discussion

This case illustrates the complexity of care and CIED-related decision-making in pacing dependent LVAD patients, in particularly those with an ICD and CRT indication.

EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Avoiding implant complications in cardiac implantable electronic devices: what works?

Nearly one in ten patients experience complications in relation to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations. CIED complications have serious implications for the patients and for the healthcare system. In light of the rising rates of new implants and consistent rate of complications, primary prevention remains a major concern. To guide future efforts, we sought to review the evidence base underlying common preventive actions made during a primary CIED implantation.

"Retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty" for obtaining venous access in patients with refractory venous obstruction

BACKGROUND

Patients with wire and catheter refractory venous occlusion are traditionally referred for pectoral transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to obtain venous access. TLE causes 1-2 mm circumferential mechanical or laser destruction of tissue surrounding the lead(s). This not only exposes the patient to the risk of major complications but also can damage nontargeted leads. We present a series of patients where retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty was used to obtain venous access in patients with refractory obstruction.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2021, we identified 17 patients where retained wire lead removal followed by fibroplasty was used to retain venous access. Demographic and procedural data were obtained by retrospective review of patient charts.

RESULTS

We were able to successfully obtain venous access in all 17 patients in whom this technique was attempted. In two patients the target lead was less than or equal to 1 year old. In the remaining 15 patients, the average dwell time of the target lead(s) was 6 years. There were no procedure-related complications, and no changes in the parameters of other leads were noted.

CONCLUSION

Retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty is safe and highly efficacious at obtaining venous access in patients with refractory venous occlusion. If the target lead(s) is less than or equal to 1 year old, this technique can help obtain venous access at the time of the initial surgery, hence avoiding the need for TLE. Furthermore, in patients referred for TLE to obtain venous access, this technique by avoiding the use of TLE tools spares the patient of the associated risks.

The use of laser lead extraction sheath in the presence of supra-cardiac occlusion of the central veins for cardiac implantable electronic device lead upgrade or revision

Background

The implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has increased in the last decades with improvement in the quality of life of patients with cardiac rhythm disorders. The presence of bilateral subclavian, innominate or superior vena cava obstruction is a major limitation to device revision and/or upgrade.

Methods and material

This is retrospective study of patients who underwent laser-assisted lead extraction (LLE) (GlideLight laser sheath, Spectranetics Corporation, Colorado Springs, USA) with lead revision or upgrade using the laser sheath as a guide rail. Patients with known occlusion, severe stenosis or functional obstruction of the venous access vessels with indwelling leads were included in this study.

Results

106 patients underwent percutaneous LLE with lead revision and/or upgrade. Preoperative known complete occlusion or severe stenosis of access veins was present in 23 patients (21.5%). More patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) underwent LLE (64.1%) than patients with CRT-Ds (24.5%) and pacemaker patients (11.3%). In total 172 leads were extracted: 79 (45.9%) single-coil defibrillator leads, 35 (20.3%) dual-coil defibrillator leads, 31 (18.0%) right atrial leads, 24 (13.9%) right ventricular leads and three (1.7%) malfunctional coronary sinus left ventricular pacing leads. The mean age of leads was 99.2±65.6 months. The implantation of new leads after crossing the venous stenosis/obstruction was successful in 98 (92.4%) cases. Postoperative complications were pocket hematoma in two cases and wound infection in one case. No peri-operative and no immediate postoperative death was recorded. One intraoperative superior vena cava tear was treated by immediate thoracotomy and surgical repair.

Conclusion

In a single-center study on LLE in the presence of supra-cardiac occlusion of the central veins for CIED lead upgrade and revision we could demonstrate a low procedural complication rate with no procedural deaths. Most of the leads could be completely extracted to revise or upgrade the system. Our study showed a low complication rate, with acceptable mortality rates.

Wire countertraction for sheath placement through stenotic and tortuous veins: The “body flossing” technique

Background

Innominate vein stenosis and venous tortuosity are common findings during cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades or replacements and present a challenge to the implanting physician. Various techniques have been described to facilitate lead placement, including serial dilation, balloon venoplasty, and percutaneous access medial to the stenosis, each with its own benefits and risks.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the wire countertraction (“body flossing”) technique to facilitate sheath placement through tortuous and stenotic vessels.

Methods

Patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device procedures requiring the body flossing technique due to inability to place vascular sheaths over the wire through stenoses or tortuosity were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical characteristics, procedural equipment, and outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Simultaneous countertraction was successful in all attempted cases, including 8 patients with stenoses and 2 with tortuosity. In 2 of the stenosis cases, venoplasty had previously failed. No complications occurred.

Conclusion

Simultaneous countertraction (body flossing) is an effective tool to overcome venous stenosis and tortuosity that are amenable to wire advancement but not to vascular sheaths. It seems to be a safe and effective alternative to other techniques used in these scenarios.