Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in Patients With Implanted Cardiac Devices: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Unveiling a Unique Presentation of Superior Vena Cava Syndrome Succeeding a Traumatic Motor Vehicle Crash and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Placement

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome, once a rarity, has seen an uptick in cases with diverse origins. While this disease process is clinically diagnosable, imaging modalities and tissue biopsies further refine interventions. The clinical presentation includes but is not limited to edema of the arms, neck, and head, facial plethora, cyanosis, and or distention of subcutaneous vessels. SVC syndrome can be attributed to extrinsic compression or thrombosis in many cases. If symptoms are not life-threatening, the overall morbidity is based on the underlying root cause. Few cases have been reported with associated death due to epistaxis. However, the obstruction itself can be initially asymptomatic and then slowly progress over months to years. This case report highlights a distinct instance of SVC syndrome with notable risk factors: implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement and prior cardiac trauma status post-intervention.

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.

Lead Extraction-Indications, Procedure, and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation has steadily increased in the United States owing to increased life expectancy, better access to health care, and the adoption of updated guidelines. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an invasive technique for the removal of CIED devices, and the most common indications include device infections, lead failures, and venous occlusion. Although in-hospital and procedure-related deaths for patients undergoing TLE are low, the long-term mortality remains high with 10-year survival reported close to 50% after TLE. This is likely demonstrative of the increased burden of comorbidities with aging. There are guidelines provided by various professional societies, including the Heart Rhythm Society, regarding indications for lead extraction and management of these patients. In this paper, we will review the indications for CIED extraction, procedural considerations, and management of these patients based upon the latest guidelines.

Sex differences in outcomes of transvenous lead extraction: insights from National Readmission Database

BACKGROUND

With the growing use of implantable cardiac devices, the need for transvenous lead extraction has increased, which translates to increased procedural volumes. Sex differences in lead extraction outcomes are not well studied.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims at evaluating the impact of sex on outcomes of lead extraction.

METHODS

We identified 71,754 patients who presented between 2016 and 2019 and underwent transvenous lead extraction. Their clinical data were retrospectively accrued from the National Readmission Database (NRD) using the corresponding diagnosis codes. We compared clinical outcomes between male and female patients. Odds ratios (ORs) for the primary and secondary outcomes were calculated, and multivariable regression analysis was utilized to adjust for confounding variables.

RESULTS

Compared to male patients, female patients had higher in-hospital complications including pneumothorax (OR 1.26, 95% CI (1.07-1.4), P < 0.01), hemopericardium (OR 1.39, 95% CI (1.02-1.88), P = 0.036), injury to superior vena cava and innominate vein requiring repair (OR 1.88, 95% CI (1.14-3.1), P = 0.014; OR 3.4, 95% CI (1.8-6.5), P < 0.01), need for blood transfusion (OR 1.28, 95% CI (1.18-1.38), P < 0.01), and pericardiocentesis (OR 1.6, 95% CI (1.3-2), P < 0.01). Thirty-day readmission was also significantly higher in female patients (OR 1.09, 95% CI (1.02-1.17), P < 0.01). There was no significant difference regarding in-hospital mortality (OR 0.99, 95% CI (0.87-1.14), P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

In female patients, lead extraction is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission rate.

Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Symptomatic Device Lead-Related Venous Obstruction

BACKGROUND

The incidence and clinical impact of lead-related venous obstruction (LRVO) among patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence of symptomatic LRVO after CIED implant; describe patterns in CIED extraction and revascularization; and quantify LRVO-related health care utilization based on each type of intervention.

METHODS

LRVO status was defined among Medicare beneficiaries after CIED implant from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Cumulative incidence functions of LRVO were estimated by Fine-Gray methods. LRVO predictors were identified using Cox regression. Incidence rates for LRVO-related health care visits were calculated with Poisson models.

RESULTS

Among 649,524 patients who underwent CIED implant, 28,214 developed LRVO, with 5.0% cumulative incidence at maximum follow-up of 5.2 years. Independent predictors of LRVO included CIEDs with >1 lead (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.07-1.15), chronic kidney disease (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.14-1.20), and malignancies (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.20-1.27). Most patients with LRVO (85.2%) were managed conservatively. Among 4,186 (14.8%) patients undergoing intervention, 74.0% underwent CIED extraction and 26.0% percutaneous revascularization. Notably, 90% of the patients did not receive another CIED after extraction, with low use (2.2%) of leadless pacemakers. In adjusted models, extraction was associated with significant reductions in LRVO-related health care utilization (adjusted rate ratio: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.52-0.66) compared with conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large nationwide sample, the incidence of LRVO was substantial, affecting 1 of every 20 patients with CIEDs. Device extraction was the most common intervention and was associated with long-term reduction in recurrent health care utilization.

Treatment of pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome by direct oral anticoagulant

BACKGROUND

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices has grown substantially over the past two decades, lead-related vascular issues are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome due to pacemaker leads is an uncommon complication. Anticoagulation remains the mainstay of therapy to restore some degree of patency and relieve swelling. However, there are limited clinical trials on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of an 80-year-old man who developed SVC syndrome after transvenous pacemaker implantation with symptoms of obstruction that were significantly relieved after four months of DOACs. His symptoms had completely resolved nine months later.

CONCLUSIONS

DOACs are effective in the treatment of SVC syndrome after pacemaker implantation, representing an important new approach. It is a very good choice for patients who do not want to undergo interventional therapy.