Lead-related superior vena cava syndrome: Management and outcomes

Managing SVC Syndrome in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Leads: Strategies and Considerations

BACKGROUND

Data on Transvenous (TV) lead-associated superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome are limited. The management of this problem might require a multidisciplinary approach, often involving TV lead extraction (TLE) followed by angioplasty and stenting.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the management and outcome of TV lead-associated SVC syndrome METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with a diagnosis of SVC syndrome and TV leads at Emory Healthcare between 2015 and 2023.

RESULTS

15 patients with lead-related SVC syndrome were identified. The cohort average age was 50 years. Symptoms included swelling in the face, neck, and upper extremity (67%), shortness of breath (53%) and lightheadedness (40%). Patients had on average 2 ± 0.7 leads crossing the SVC with a lead dwell time of 9.8 ± 7.5 years. Thirteen patients were managed with transvenous lead extraction (TLE), followed by SVC stenting and angioplasty (10), angioplasty alone (2), while one patient had no intervention after TLE. One patient was managed with anticoagulation, and another had angioplasty and stenting with lead jailing. One patient experienced SVC perforation and cardiac tamponade during SVC stenting managed successfully with a covered stent and pericardiocentesis. Among the 12 patients with TLE and angioplasty ± stenting, 7 patients underwent reimplantation of a transvenous lead. Two of those patients had symptoms recurrence and none of the 5 patients without lead reimplantation had recurrence of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Lead-related SVC syndrome management requires a multidisciplinary approach often including TLE followed by angioplasty and stenting. Avoiding TV lead reimplantation might help reduce symptoms recurrence.

Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 2-imaging after device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) improve quality of life and prolong survival, but there are additional considerations for cardiovascular imaging after implantation-both for standard indications and for diagnosing and guiding management of device-related complications. This clinical consensus statement (part 2) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients after implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the role and optimal use of various cardiac imaging modalities in patients with suspected CIED-related complications and also discusses CRT optimization, the safety of magnetic resonance imaging in CIED carriers, and describes the role of chest radiography in assessing CIED type, position, and complications. The role of imaging before and during CIED implantation is discussed in a companion document (part 1).

Lead management in patients undergoing percutaneous tricuspid valve replacement or repair: a 'heart team' approach

Clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has historically been managed with either medical therapy or surgical interventions. More recently, percutaneous trans-catheter tricuspid valve (TV) replacement and tricuspid trans-catheter edge-to-edge repair have emerged as alternative treatment modalities. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have an increased incidence of TR. Severe TR in this population can occur for multiple reasons but most often results from the interactions between the CIED lead and the TV apparatus. Management decisions in patients with CIED leads and clinically significant TR, who are undergoing evaluation for a percutaneous TV intervention, need careful consideration as a trans-venous lead extraction (TLE) may both worsen and improve TR severity. Furthermore, given the potential risks of 'jailing' a CIED lead at the time of a percutaneous TV intervention (lead fracture and risk of subsequent infections), consideration should be given to performing a TLE prior to a percutaneous TV intervention. The purpose of this 'state-of-the-art' review is to provide an overview of the causes of TR in patients with CIEDs, discuss the available therapeutic options for patients with TR and CIED leads, and advocate for including a lead management specialist as a member of the 'heart team' when making treatment decisions in patients TR and CIED leads.

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.

Pacemaker-associated superior vena cava syndrome: Role of contrast echocardiography

Pacemaker-associated superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is increasingly recognized as a nonmalignant type of SVC syndrome. Computed tomographic (CT) angiography is the first choice of imaging for diagnosis but in some cases there is discrepancy between the clinical findings and CT images. In this report we present the role of contrast study with transesophageal echocardiography in a patient with suspicion of SVC syndrome but inconclusive CT findings.

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.

Percutaneous management of superior vena cava syndrome in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding the optimal management of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)-related superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

We report our experience with transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) in the setting of symptomatic CIED-related SVC syndrome.

METHODS

We reviewed all TLEs performed at a high-volume center over a 14-year period and identified patients in which TLE was performed for symptomatic SVC syndrome. Patient characteristics, extraction details, percutaneous management of SVC occlusions, and clinical follow up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over a 14-year period, more than 1600 TLEs were performed. Of these, 16 patients underwent TLE for symptomatic SVC syndrome. The mean age was 53.1 ± 12.8 years, and 9 (56.3%) were men. Thirty-seven leads, with a mean dwell time of 5.8 years (range 2-12 years), were extracted. After extraction, 6 patients (37.5%) received an SVC stent. Balloon angioplasty was performed before stenting in 5 cases (31.3%). There was 1 major complication (6.3%) due to an SVC tear that was managed surgically with a favorable outcome. Eleven patients underwent reimplantation of a CIED. Over a median follow-up of 5.5 years (interquartile range 2.0-8.5 years), 12 patients (75%) remained free of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Combining TLE with the percutaneous treatment of symptomatic SVC syndrome is a safe and viable treatment strategy.