Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Added Complexity and Suboptimal Outcomes With Previously Abandoned Leads

Long-term outcomes with abandoning versus extracting sterile leads: A 10-year population-based study

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of sterile lead management strategies of lead abandonment (LA) or transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remain unclear.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of a population residing in southeastern Minnesota with follow-up at the Mayo Clinic and its health systems. Patients who underwent LA or TLE of sterile leads from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2011, and had follow-up for at least 10 years or until their death were included.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included in the study with 153 patients who underwent LA and 19 who underwent TLE for sterile leads. Indications for subsequent lead extraction arose in 9.1% (n = 14) of patients with initial LA and 5.3% (n = 1) in patients with initial TLE, after an average of 7 years. Moreover, 28.6% of patients in the LA cohort who required subsequent extraction did not proceed with the extraction, and among those who proceeded, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure. Subsequent device upgrades or revisions were performed in 18.3% of patients in the LA group and 31.6% in the TLE group, with no significant differences in procedural challenges (5.2% vs. 5.3%). There was no difference in 10-year survival probability among the LA group and the TLE group (p = .64).

CONCLUSION

An initial lead abandonment strategy was associated with more complicated subsequent extraction procedures compared to patients with an initial transvenous lead extraction strategy. However, there was no difference in 10-year survival probability between both lead management approaches.

Lead Break during Extraction: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Procedure Complexity and Outcome: Analysis of 3825 Procedures

Background: Currently, there are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead, defined as LB, with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78%, and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04% of the cases studied. In cases in which the lead remnant comprises more than the tip only, there was a 50.31% chance of removing the lead fragment in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity, including long lead dwell time [OR = 1.018], a higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures, and the extraction of passive fixation leads. The LECOM and LED scores also exhibit a high predictive value. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96 vs. 1.53%). There was no incidence of procedure-related death among such patients, and LB did not affect the survival statistics after TLE. Conclusions: LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures, and this predictable difficulty increases procedure complexity and the risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning the lead extraction strategy and its associated training.

Effect of age on in-hospital outcomes of transvenous lead extraction for infected cardiac implantable electronic device

BACKGROUND

The real-world data on the safety profile of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) among elderly patients is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the hospital outcomes between patients of different age groups who underwent TLE for infected CIED.

METHOD

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent TLE for infected CIED between 2017 and 2020. We divided the patients into four groups: Group A. Young (<50 years), Group B. Young intermediate (50-69 years old), Group C. Older intermediate (70-79 years old), and Group D. Octogenarian (≥80 years old). We then analyzed the in-hospital outcome and 30-day readmission between these age groups.

RESULTS

A total of 10,928 patients who were admitted for TLE of infected CIED were included in this study: 982 (9.0%) patients in group A, 4,234 (38.7%) patients in group B, 3,204 (29.3%) patients in group C and 2,508 (23.0%) of patients in group D. Our study demonstrated that the risk of early mortality increased with older age (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.19-3.09, p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.51-4.04, p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.69-4.72, p < .01). The risk of non-home discharge also increased in elderly groups (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.52-2.36; p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.82; 95% CI 2.24-3.56; p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 4.16; 95% CI: 3.28-5.28; p < .01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization length and 30-day readmission between different age groups. Apart from a higher rate of open heart surgery in group A, the procedural complications were comparable between these age groups.

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients had worse in-hospital outcomes in early mortality and non-home discharge following the TLE for infected CIED. There was no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in prolonged hospital stay and 30-day readmission. Elderly patients did not have a higher risk of procedural complications.

The BLISTER Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-Utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the United Kingdom. Risk scoring could help to identify which patients would most benefit from this technology.

METHODS

A novel risk score (BLISTER [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score (Prior procedure, Age, Depressed renal function, Immunocompromised, Type of procedure) in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) antimicrobial envelope allocation.

RESULTS

In a derivation cohort (n=7383), cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate, 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.9-6.1]; P<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (hazard ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.4]; P=0.005), reintervention within 2 years (hazard ratio, 10.1 [95% CI, 5.6-17.9]; P<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (hazard ratio, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6-4.1]; P=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard risk (n=2854, event rate: 0.8%, area under the curve, 0.82 versus 0.71; P=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1961, event rate: 2.0%, area under the curve, 0.77 versus 0.69; P=0.001), and in all patients (n=12 198, event rate: 1%, area under the curve, 0.8 versus 0.75, P=0.002). In decision-analytic modeling, the optimum scenario assigned antimicrobial envelopes to patients with BLISTER scores ≥6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction, 30%; P=0.036) within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-utility thresholds (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £18 446).

CONCLUSIONS

The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and could facilitate cost-effective antimicrobial envelope allocation to high-risk patients.

VDD Lead Extraction-Differences with Other Leads and Practical Tips in Management

Background: VDD (atrial sensing, ventricular sensing/pacing) leads are relatively rarely implanted; therefore, experience in their extraction is very limited. We aimed to investigate whether VDD lead removal may be a risk factor for the increased complexity of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) or major complications. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3808 TLE procedures (including 103 patients with VDD leads). Results: If TLE included VDD lead removal, procedure duration (lead dilation time) was prolonged, complicated extractions were slightly more common, and more advanced tools were required. This is partly due to longer implant duration (in patients with VDD systems-135.2 months; systems without VDD leads-109.3 months; p < 0.001), more frequent presence of abandoned leads (all systems containing VDD leads-22.33% and all systems without VDD leads-10.77%), and partly to the younger age of patients with VDD leads (51.74 vs. 57.72 years; p < 0.001, in the remaining patients) at the time of system implantation. VDD lead extraction does not increase the risk of major complications (1.94 vs. 2.34%; p = 0.905). Conclusions: The extraction of VDD leads may be considered a risk factor for increased procedure complexity, but not for major complications. However, this is not a direct result of VDD lead extraction but specific characteristics of the patients with VDD leads. Operator skill and team experience combined with special custom maneuvers can enable favorable results to be achieved despite the specific design of VDD leads, even with older VDD lead models.

Long-term outcomes of abandoned leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the long-term outcomes of abandoned leads (ALs) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of ALs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study reviewed a single-center CIED registry of 2962 procedures performed from 1984-2018 and identified 130 patients with AL (AL group). We matched 2 controls without AL (by age, sex, device type, and device revision/removal date) to each patient with AL (n = 260) and compared CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality between groups using a Cox proportional hazard model analysis.

RESULTS

For a mean follow-up period of 11.2 ± 8.2 years, 14 (3.6%), 7 (1.8%), and 143 (36.7%) patients had a CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or experienced all-cause mortality, respectively. The AL group had more comorbidities than the control group. Lead malfunction was the most common cause of abandonment (64.6%). After adjustment for covariates, no significant intergroup differences were noted in the risks of infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-8.25; aHR 1.18; 95% CI 0.25-5.64; aHR 1.26; 95% CI 0.89-1.80, respectively). Patients with multiple ALs had increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality vs controls (aHR 8.61; 95% CI 2.13-34.84; aHR 2.42; 95% CI 1.17-5.00, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a single AL showed similar risks of CIED-related infections, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality as those without ALs, whereas those with multiple ALs showed increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality.

Procedural outcome & risk prediction in young patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction-a GALLERY subgroup analysis

Background

The prevalence of young patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is steadily increasing, accompanied by a rise in the occurrence of complications related to CIEDs. Consequently, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has become a crucial treatment approach for such individuals.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics and procedural outcomes of young patients who undergo TLE, with a specific focus on identifying independent risk factors associated with adverse events.

Methods

All patients in the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) were categorized into two groups based on their age at the time of enrollment: 45 years or younger, and over 45 years. A subgroup analysis was conducted specifically for the younger population. In this analysis, predictor variables for all-cause mortality, procedural complications, and procedural failure were evaluated using multivariable analyses.

Results

We identified 160 patients aged 45 years or younger with a mean age of 35.3 ± 7.6 years and 42.5% (n = 68) female patients. Leading extraction indication was lead dysfunction in 51.3% of cases, followed by local infections in 20.6% and systemic infections in 16.9%. The most common device to be extracted were implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) with 52.5%. Mean number of leads per patient was 2.2 ± 1.0. Median age of the oldest indwelling lead was 91.5 [54.75-137.5] months. Overall complication rate was 3.8% with 1.9% minor and 1.9% major complications. Complete procedural success was achieved in 90.6% of cases. Clinical procedural success rate was 98.1%. Procedure-related mortality was 0.0%. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate was 2.5%, with septic shock identified as the primary cause of mortality. Multivariable analysis revealed CKD (OR: 19.0; 95% CI: 1.84-194.9; p = 0.018) and systemic infection (OR: 12.7; 95% CI: 1.14-142.8; p = 0.039) as independent predictor for all-cause mortality. Lead age ≥ 10 years (OR: 14.58, 95% CI: 1.36-156.2; p = 0.027) was identified as sole independent risk factor for procedural complication.

Conclusion

TLE in young patients is safe and effective with a procedure-related mortality rate of 0.0%. CKD and systemic infection are predictors for all-cause mortality, whereas lead age ≥ 10 years was identified as independent risk factor for procedural complications in young patients undergoing TLE.

Extraction of non-infected redundant pacing and defibrillator leads does not result in better patient outcomes

The introduction of dedicated tools for pacing and defibrillator lead extraction has resulted in relatively high success and low complication rates. The confidence this elicits has broadened the indications from device infections to non-functional or redundant leads and the latter make up an increasing share of extraction procedures. Proponents of extracting these leads point to the higher complication burden of lead extraction in patients with longstanding abandoned leads when compared one-to-one with extraction when these leads become redundant. However, this does not translate into better patient outcomes on a population level: complications are rare with properly abandoned leads and thus most patients will never be subjected to an extraction procedure and the ensuing complications. Therefore, not extracting redundant leads minimises the risk for the patients and avoids many expensive procedures.

Transvenous Lead Extraction during Cardiac Implantable Device Upgrade: Results from the Multicenter Swiss Lead Extraction Registry

BACKGROUND

Device patients may require upgrade interventions from simpler to more complex cardiac implantable electronic devices. Prior to upgrading interventions, clinicians need to balance the risks and benefits of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), additional lead implantation or lead abandonment. However, evidence on procedural outcomes of TLE at the time of device upgrade is scarce.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the investigator-initiated multicenter Swiss TLE registry. The objectives were to assess patient and procedural factors influencing TLE outcomes at the time of device upgrades.

RESULTS

941 patients were included, whereof 83 (8.8%) had TLE due to a device upgrade. Rotational mechanical sheaths were more often used in upgraded patients (59% vs. 42.7%, p = 0.015) and total median procedure time was longer in these patients (160 min vs. 105 min, p < 0.001). Clinical success rates of upgraded patients compared to those who received TLE due to other reasons were not different (97.6% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.569). Moreover, multivariable analysis showed that upgrade procedures were not associated with a greater risk for complications (HR 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.57, p = 0.224; intraprocedural complication rate of upgraded patients 7.2% vs. 5.5%). Intraprocedural complications of upgraded patients were mostly associated with the implantation and not the extraction procedure (67% vs. 33% of complications).

CONCLUSIONS

TLE during device upgrade is effective and does not attribute a disproportionate risk to the upgrade procedure.

Transvenous Lead Extraction: Work in Progress

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are the cornerstone of cardiac rhythm management, with a significant number of implantations annually. A rising prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices coupled with widening indications for device removal has fuelled a demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). With advancement of tools and techniques, the safety and efficacy profile of TLE has significantly improved since its inception. Despite these advances, TLE continues to carry risk of significant complications, including a superior vena cava injury and mortality. However, innovative approaches to lead extraction, including the use of the jugular and femoral accesses, offers potential for further gains in safety and efficacy. In this review, the indications and risks of TLE are discussed while examining the evolution of this procedure from simple traction to advanced methodologies, which have contributed to a significant improvement in safety and efficacy.

Unexpected Procedure Difficulties Increasing the Complexity of Transvenous Lead Extraction: The Single Centre Experience with 3721 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) should be completed, even when facing difficulties which have yet to be described. The aim was to explore unexpected TLE obstacles (the circumstances of the occurrence and influence on TLE outcome).

METHODS

The retrospective analysis of a single centre database containing 3721 TLEs.

RESULTS

Unexpected procedure difficulties (UPDs) occurred in 18.43% of cases (singles in 12.20% of cases and multiples in 6.26% of cases). These included blockages in the lead venous approach in3.28% of cases, functional lead dislodgement in 0.91% of cases, and loss of broken lead fragment in 0.60% of cases. All of them, including implant vein-in 7.98% of cases, lead fracture during extraction-in 3.84% of cases, and lead-to-lead adherence-in 6.59% of cases, Byrd dilator collapse-in 3.41% of cases, including the use of an alternative prolonged the procedure but had no influence on long-term mortality. Most of the occurrences were associated with lead dwell time, younger patient age, lead burden, and poorer procedure effectiveness and complications (common cause). However, some of the problems seemed to be related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and the subsequent lead management strategy. A more complete list of all tips and tricks is still required.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) The complexity of the lead extraction procedure combines both prolonged procedure duration and the occurrence of lesser-known UPDs. (2) UPDs are present in nearly one fifth of the TLE procedures, and can occur simultaneously. (3) UPDs, which usually force the extractor to expand the range of techniques and tools, should become part of the training in transvenous lead extraction.

Assessment of the impact of organisational model of transvenous lead extraction on the effectiveness and safety of procedure: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the impact of the organisational model of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) on effectiveness and safety of procedures.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of patient data entered prospectively into a computer database.

SETTING

Data of all patients undergoing TLE in three centres in Poland between 2006 and 2021 were analysed.

PARTICIPANTS

3462 patients including: 985 patients undergoing TLE in a hybrid room (HR), with cardiac surgeon (CS) as co-operator, under general anaesthesia (GA), with arterial line (AL) and with transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) monitoring (group 1), 68 patients-TLE in HR with CS, under GA, without TEE (group 2), 406 patients-TLE in operating theatre (OT) using 'arm-C' X-ray machine with CS under GA and with TEE (group 3), 154 patients-TLE in OT with CS under GA, without TEE (group 4), 113 patients-TLE in OT with anaesthesia team, using the 'arm-C' X-ray machine, without CS (group 5), 122 patients-TLE in electrophysiology lab (EPL), with CS under intravenous analgesia without TEE and AL (group 6), 1614 patients-TLE in EPL, without CS, under intravenous analgesia without TEE and AL (group 7).

KEY OUTCOME MEASURE

Effectiveness and safety of TLE depending on organisational model.

RESULTS

The rate of major complications (MC) was higher in OT/HR than in EPL (2.66% vs 1.38%), but all MCs were treated successfully and there was no MC-related death. The use of TEE during TLE increased probability of complete procedural succemss achieving about 1.5 times (OR=1.482; p<0.034) and were connected with reduction of minor complications occurrence (OR=0.751; p=0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important condition to avoid death due to MC is close co-operation with cardiac surgery team, which permits for urgent rescue cardiac surgery. Continuous TEE monitoring plays predominant role in immediate decision on rescue sternotomy and improves the effectiveness of procedure.

Efficacy and Safety of Transvenous Lead Extraction at the Time of Upgrade from Pacemakers to Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Upgrading from pacemakers to ICDs and CRTs is a difficult procedure, and often, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is necessary for venous access. TLE is considered riskier in patients with multiple diseases. We aimed to assess the complexity, risk, and outcome of TLE among CRT and ICD candidates.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical data from 2408 patients undergoing TLE between 2006 and 2021. There were 138 patients upgraded to CRT-D, 33 patients upgraded to CRT-P and 89 individuals upgraded to ICD versus 2148 patients undergoing TLE for other non-infectious indications.

RESULTS

The need for an upgrade was the leading indication for TLE in only 36-66% of patients. In 42.0-57.6% of patients, the upgrade procedure could be successfully done only after reestablishing access to the occluded vein. All leads were extracted in 68.1-76.4% of patients, functional leads were retained in 20.2-31.9%, non-functional leads were left in place in 0.0-1.1%, and non-functional superfluous leads were extracted in 3.6-8.4%. The long-term survival rate of patients in the CRT-upgrade group was lower (63.8%) than in the non-upgrade group (75.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading a patient from an existing pacemaker to an ICD/CRT is feasible in 100% of cases, provided that TLE is performed for venous access. Major complications of TLE at the time of device upgrade are rare and, if present do not result in death.

Repeat Transvenous Lead Extraction-Predictors, Effectiveness, Complications and Long-Term Prognostic Significance

BACKGROUND

Data regarding repeat transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are scarce. The aim of study was to explore the frequency of repeat TLE, its safety, predisposing factors, as well as effectiveness of repeat procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a large single-center database of 3654 TLEs.

RESULTS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (193, i.e., 5,28% among 3654 TLEs). Subsequent re-extractions occurred in 12.21% of the patients. Lead failure was the most common cause of re-extraction (51.16%). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who were older at first implantation [HR = 0.987; p = 0.003], had infection-related TLE [HR = 0.392; p < 0.001] and complete procedural success [HR = 0.544; p = 0.034] were less likely to undergo repeat TLE. Functional leads left in place for continuous use [HR = 1.405; p = 0.012] or superfluous leads left in place (abandoned) [HR = 2.370; p = 0.011] were associated with an increased risk of undergoing a repeat procedure. Overall mortality in patients with repeat TLE and subsequent re-extraction in the entire FU period was similar to that in patients without a history of re-extraction [HR = 0.949; p = 0.480].

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (5.28%) among TLEs. Left of both active and nonactive leads during TLE increased the risk of re-extraction. Re-extraction has no effect on the long-term mortality.

Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Leads Older Than 20 and 30 Years-A Large Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is limited knowledge on outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of leads being 20 and 30 years old.

METHODS

Retrospective single center large database analysis containing 3673 TLE procedures performed from 2006 to 2020 was analysed. We aimed to compare procedure complexity and the incidence of the TLE major complications (MC) in groups where extracted leads were under 10 years, 10-20 years, 20-30 years (old) and over 30 years (very old).

RESULTS

Rate of removal of old and very old leads almost doubles with successive five-year periods (3-6-10%). In patients with old and very old leads there is an accumulation of risk factors for major complications of TLE (young age, female, multiple and/or abandoned leads, multiple previous procedures). The removal of old and very old leads was more labour-consuming, more difficult, and much more often required second-line (advanced) tools and complex techniques. Incidence of all MC grew parallel to age of removed leads from 0.6 to 18.2%; haemopericardium-from 0.3 to 12.1%, severe tricuspid valve damage-from 0.2 to 2.1%, need for rescue cardiac surgery-from 0.4 to 9.1%. Notably, there was no procedure-related death when old or very old lead was extracted. The percentages of clinical and procedural success decreased with increasing age of the removed leads from 99.2 and 97.8% to 90.9 and 81.8%. The risk of MC during extraction of leads aged 10-20 years increases 6.7 times, aged 20-30 years-14.3 times (amounting to 8.4%), and aged 30 and more years-20.4 times, amounting to 18.2%. Removal of ventricular leads is associated with a greater complexity of the procedure but not with more frequent MC. Removal of the atrial leads is associated with a higher incidence of MC, especially haemopericardium, regardless of the age of the leads, although the tendency becomes less pronounced with the oldest leads.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Extraction of old and very old leads is a rising challenge, since the rate of removal of leads aged 20-and-more years almost doubles with successive five-year periods. 2. Procedure difficulty, complexity and the risk of major complications increases along with the age of extracted lead. TLE is more time-consuming, difficult and much more often requires advanced tools and complex techniques. 3. TLE of old (≥20 years) or very old (≥30 years) leads can be performed with satisfactory success rate and safety profile when conducted at high-volume centre by an experienced operator under optimal safety conditions.

Step by Step through the Years-High vs. Low Energy Lead Extraction Using Advanced Extraction Techniques

Background: Limited data is available about the outcome of TLE in patients with vs. without high energy leads in the last decade. Methods: This is an analysis of consecutive patients undergoing TLE at a high-volume TLE centre from 2001 to 2021 using the stepwise approach. Baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcome of patients with high energy lead (ICD group) vs. without high energy lead (non-ICD group) were compared. Results: Out of 667 extractions, 991 leads were extracted in 405 procedures (60.7%) in the ICD group and 439 leads in 262 procedures (39.3%) in the non-ICD group. ICD patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs. 74 years) and were significantly less often female (18.1% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.005 for both). Advanced extraction tools were used significantly more often in the ICD group (73.2% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in the successful removal (98.8% vs. 99.2%) or complications (4.7% vs. 3.1%) between the groups (p > 0.2 for both). Discussion: Using the stepwise approach, overall procedural success was high and complication rate was low in a high-volume centre. In patients with a high energy lead, the TLE procedure was more complex, but outcome was similar to comparator patients.

Transvenous lead extraction in conduction system pacing

Conduction System Pacing (CSP) delivered by His Bundle Pacing (HBP) or Left Bundle Pacing (LBP) are exciting novel interventions in the field of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT). As the evidence base for CSP grows, the volume of implants worldwide is projected to rise significantly in the coming years. As such, physicians will be confronted with increasingly prevalent and vital issues arising in long-term follow up, including the management of infected, malfunctioning, or redundant CSP leads. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the first-line option for removal of pacing leads when indicated in these circumstances. The evidence base for TLE in the context of CSP is still in its infancy. In this article, we first provide a brief overview of TLE. We then examine the data on the long-term performance of HBP leads. Next, we describe the features of the Medtronic Select Secure 3,830 lead, and how experience of TLE of this lead in the paediatric population has informed our practice. Finally, we review the current evidence for TLE in HBP and LBP, and discuss how future studies can address gaps in our current knowledge.

Looking for Lead Adhesions While Planning for Transvenous Lead Extraction

The first implantable pacemaker was placed in the 1958, ushering in a new frontier of cardiovascular medicine. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Transvenous Lead Extraction without Procedure-Related Deaths in 1000 Consecutive Patients: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is now a first-line technique for the treatment of complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of the study was to demonstrate that it is possible to safely perform difficult TLE procedures with a maximum reduction of peri-procedural major complications.

Methods

A total of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center from 2016 to 2019 were studied. All procedures were performed in a hybrid room or operating room by a specialized TLE team. TLE was performed under general anesthesia and monitored by transesophageal echocardiography, and the operating room was suitably equipped for immediate surgical intervention. The effectiveness and safety of the procedures were assessed, with particular emphasis on major complications.

Results

In all, 1952 leads with the mean implant duration of 111.7 ± 77.6 months had been extracted. Complete procedural success of patients was achieved in 95.9% and clinical success in 99.1%. Major complications, predominantly cardiac tamponade (63.3%), occurred in 22 patients (2.2%). Rapid diagnosis and immediate intervention were the key to a 100% survival in patients with this complication.

Conclusion

Performing procedures in a hybrid operating room under general anesthesia in the presence of a cardiac surgeon and with the use of transesophageal echocardiography significantly improves the safety of transvenous lead extraction.

Lead Abandonment and Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation in a Cohort of Patients With ICD Lead Malfunction

Background: When an implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead becomes non-functional, a recommendation currently exists for either lead abandonment or removal. Lead abandonment and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation may represent an additional option for patients who do not require pacing. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of a strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation in the setting of lead malfunction.

Methods: We analyzed all consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads and compared their outcomes with those of patients who underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a single-chamber transvenous ICD (T-ICD).

Results: Forty-three patients underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads, while 62 patients underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a new T-ICD. The two groups were comparable. In the extraction group, no major complications occurred during extraction, while the procedure failed and an S-ICD was implanted in 4 patients. During a median follow-up of 21 months, 3 major complications or deaths occurred in the S-ICD group and 11 in the T-ICD group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.29–3.94; P = 0.912). Minor complications were 4 in the S-ICD group and 5 in the T-ICD group (HR 2.13; 95% CI 0.49–9.24; P = 0.238).

Conclusions: In the event of ICD lead malfunction, extraction avoids the potential long-term risks of abandoned leads. Nonetheless the strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation was feasible and safe, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes, and may represent an option in selected clinical settings. Further studies are needed to fully understand the potential risks of lead abandonment.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02275637

Current practice in transvenous lead extraction in Latin America: Latin American Heart Rhythm Association survey

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is standard of care for the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device infection or lead-related complications. Currently, objective data on TLE in Latin America is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current practice standards in Latin American centers performing TLE.

METHODS

An online survey was sent through the mailing list of the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society. Online reminders were sent through the mailing list; duplicate answers were discarded. The survey was available for 1 month, after which no more answers were accepted.

RESULTS

A total of 48 answers were received, from 44 different institutions (39.6% from Colombia, 27.1% from Brazil), with most respondents (82%) being electrophysiologists. Twenty-nine institutions (66%) performed <10 lead extractions/year, with 7 (16%) institutions not performing lead extraction. Although most institutions in which lead extraction is performed reported using several tools, mechanical rotating sheaths were cited as the main tool (66%) and only 13% reported the use of laser sheaths. Management of infected leads was performed according to current guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This survey is the first attempt to provide information on TLE procedures in Latin America and could provide useful information for future prospective registries. According to our results, the number of centers performing high volume lead extraction in Latin America is smaller than that reported in other continents, with most interventions performed using mechanical tools. Future prospective registries assessing acute and long-term success are needed.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Safety and efficacy of transvenous mechanical lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads

AIMS

Optimal management of redundant or malfunctioning leads is controversial. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with abandoned leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive TLE procedures performed in our centre from January 2009 to December 2017 were considered. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of mechanical TLE in patients with abandoned (Group 1) compared to non-abandoned (Group 2) leads. We analysed 1210 consecutive patients that required transvenous removal of 2343 leads. Group 1 accounted for 250 patients (21%) with a total of 617 abandoned leads (26%). Group 2 comprised 960 patients (79%) with 1726 leads (74%). The total number of leads (3.0 vs. 2.0), dwelling time of the oldest lead (108.00 months vs. 60.00 months) and infectious indications for TLE were higher in Group 1. Clinical success was achieved in 1168 patients (96.5%) with a lower rate in Group 1 (90.4% vs. 98.1%; P < 0.001). Major complications occurred in only 9 patients (0.7%), without significant differences among the two groups. The presence of one or more abandoned leads [odds ratio (OR) 3.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-11.19; P = 0.037] and dwelling time of the oldest lead (OR 1.01 for a month; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; P < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of clinical failure.

CONCLUSION

Transvenous mechanical lead extraction is a safe procedure also in high-risk settings, as patients with abandoned leads. Success rate resulted a bit lower, especially in the presence of abandoned leads with long implantation time.

Long-term follow-up of abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads: a nationwide cohort study

AIMS

Commonly, a dysfunctional defibrillator lead is abandoned and a new lead is implanted. Long-term follow-up data on abandoned leads are sparse. We aimed to investigate the incidence and reasons for extraction of abandoned defibrillator leads in a nationwide cohort and to describe extraction procedure-related complications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads were identified in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register from 1991 to 2019. The event-free survival of abandoned defibrillator leads was studied, and medical records of patients with interventions on abandoned defibrillator leads were audited for procedure-related data. We identified 740 abandoned defibrillator leads. Meantime from implantation to abandonment was 7.2 ± 3.8 years with mean patient age at abandonment of 66.5 ± 13.7 years. During a mean follow-up after abandonment of 4.4 ± 3.1 years, 65 (8.8%) abandoned defibrillator leads were extracted. Most frequent reason for extraction was infection (pocket and systemic) in 41 (63%) patients. Procedural outcome after lead extraction was clinical success in 63 (97%) patients. Minor complications occurred in 3 (5%) patients, and major complications in 1 (2%) patient. No patient died from complication to the procedure during 30-day follow-up after extraction.

CONCLUSION

More than 90% of abandoned defibrillator leads do not need to be extracted during long-term follow-up. The most common indication for extraction is infection. Abandoned defibrillator leads can be extracted with high clinical success rate and low risk of major complications at high-volume centres.

Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are potentially life-saving treatments for several cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Despite dissemination of recommended strategies for prevention of device infections, such as administration of antibiotics before implantation, infection rates continue to rise resulting in escalating health care costs. New trials conveying important steps for better prevention of device infection and an EHRA consensus paper were recently published. This document will review the role of various preventive measures for CIED infection, emphasizing the importance of adhering to published recommendations. The document aims to provide guidance on how to prevent CIED infections in clinical practice by considering modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors that may be present pre-, peri-, and/or post-procedure.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Transvenous lead extraction in patients with prior extraction procedures: Procedural profiles and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Subclinical venous injuries are common during transvenous lead extraction (TLE), but their implications for future TLE are unclear. Little is known about whether a prior TLE adds risk or complexity to subsequent extraction procedures.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess procedural profiles and outcomes of TLE based on whether patients had prior extraction procedures.

METHODS

All 3258 consecutive patients undergoing TLE at the Cleveland Clinic (1996-2012) were included. Procedural profiles and outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

Of 3258 TLEs, 198 had prior TLE. Median number of leads in place was 2 in both groups, but patients with prior TLE were more likely to have defibrillator leads (47% vs 41%; P = .08) and more likely to be pacemaker-dependent (32% vs 25%; P = .02). The age of oldest lead (median 2134 vs 1902 days; P = .4) and combined age of leads (median 2948 vs 2676 days; P = .6) were comparable. Procedures were longer in those with prior TLE (166 ± 79 minutes vs 149 ± 74 minutes; P = .004) with comparable fluoroscopy times (median 13 vs 11 minutes; P = .07), and successful extraction was more likely to require specialized tools (88% vs 81%; P = .006) with higher likelihood of rescue femoral workstation (12% vs 4%; P <.0001). Clinical success rates were comparable in those with prior TLE (99.5% vs 98.9%; P = .8) with similar major (3.0% vs 1.9%; P = .3) and minor (3.0% vs 3.7%; P = .8) complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Extraction procedures were more challenging in patients with prior TLE compared to those without prior TLE but with excellent success and low complication rates.

Complications of retained pacemaker hardware in heart transplant recipients: case series and review of the literature

Heart transplantation (HT) in patients with prior cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is becoming more common, in parallel with the increased use of CIEDs for patients with advanced heart failure. Complete removal of CIED components during HT is not always feasible, and it is thus surprising that the literature addressing the implications of retained CIED components is limited. Indeed, there are neither guidelines nor consensus regarding the need for removal of these CIED fragments. This issue is nonetheless becoming important in light of the increase in the percentage of HT candidates having CIEDs, on the one hand, and newer therapeutic immunosuppressive protocols with higher bacterial infection potential, on the other. Thus, with the aim to study the implications of retained CIED fragments as a step towards establishing a therapeutic approach for the unique population of HT recipients with CIED remnants, we present here a case series of HT patients with retained CIED fragments who developed complications of infections together with a review of the available literature.

Complications of retained cardiac defibrillator coil left in situ

A 42-year-old man presented to a regional hospital emergency department with a 4-day history of haemoptysis, shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, productive cough and subjective fevers. This episode was the third similar presentation in a 2-month period. The patient was known to have dilated cardiomyopathy secondary to amphetamine use and had previously required insertion of automated implantable cardiac defibrillator (AICD). Due to recurrent complications, the AICD had been replaced on two occasions and a superior vena cava (SVC) lead left in situ on its final removal. Clinical examination and investigations revealed lower respiratory tract infection and transthoracic echocardiogram revealed severe left ventricular failure with an ejection fraction of 16%. The patient was admitted under the general medical team for treatment and investigation of suspected bacteraemia and septicaemia secondary to colonisation of the retained AICD lead. He spent 6 days as an in-patient and was discharged on home where he was to be followed up by the advanced heart failure team in a tertiary centre for consideration of new AICD insertion and to explore possibility of retained coil removal. This case report discusses the concerns surrounding retained SVC leads and potential clinical sequalae. As this patient presented three times within a period of 2 months, it was suspected retained SVC lead was a predisposing factor for recurrent lower respiratory infection.

Lead extraction for cardiac implantable electronic device infection: comparable complication rates with or without abandoned leads

AIMS

Abandoned leads are often linked to complications during lead extraction, prompting pre-emptive extraction if leads become non-functional. We examined their influence on complications when extracted for device-related infection.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients undergoing lead extraction for device-related infection from 2006 to 2017 in our hospital were included. The primary endpoint was major complications. Out of 500 patients, 141 had abandoned leads, of whom 75% had only one abandoned lead. Median cumulative implant times were 24.2 (interquartile range 15.6-38.2) and 11.6 (5.6-17.4), respectively years with or without abandoned leads. All leads were extracted only with a femoral approach in 50.4% of patients. Mechanical rotational tools were introduced in 2014 and used in 22.2% of cases and replacing laser sheaths that were used in 5% of patients. Major complications occurred in 0.7% of patients with abandoned leads compared with 1.7% of patients with only active leads (P = 0.679). Failure to completely remove all leads was 14.9% and 6.4%, respectively with or without abandoned leads (P = 0.003), and clinical failure was 6.4% and 2.2% (P = 0.028), respectively. Procedural failure dropped to 9.2% and 5.7% (P = 0.37), respectively after the introduction of mechanical rotational tools. The only independent predictor of procedural and clinical failure in multivariate analysis was the cumulative implant duration.

CONCLUSION

Despite longer implant times, patients with abandoned leads did not have more major complications during lead extraction. Therefore, preventive extraction of non-functional leads to avoid complications at a later stage is not warranted.

Recurrent Bacteremia After Heart Transplantation Due to Abandoned Lead Fragment in an Anonymous Vein-A Case Report

Heart transplantation (HTx) represents the "gold standard" in end-stage heart failure therapy. Due to their severe heart failure and for prevention of sudden cardiac death, the majority of patients presenting for HTx will have a history of an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Usually, within the scope of HTx, all cardiac-implanted electronic device components are removed. In rare cases these efforts fail and some material remains. The abandoned lead fragments can cause serious complications. The case presented herein involves a patient with recurrent bacteremia after successful HTx originating from an abandoned and infected lead fragment. In 2016, a 64-year-old man received a donor heart transplant due to end-stage heart failure. Unfortunately, during the procedure, not all components of an ICD implanted in 2007 could be removed. An initially event-free period was followed by recurrent fever attacks and staphylococcal bacteremia was diagnosed. After an extensive search, the source of the bacteremia was identified by positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT), and percutaneous extraction of the abandoned and infected ICD lead fragment was scheduled. The fragment was extracted using a minimally invasive approach via percutaneous femoral vein access. The patient was discharged 3 days later, with no further complications. This case highlights the need for conscientious and complete removal of foreign material in the HTx setting. Difficult-to-diagnose sources of infection could be reliably identified by PET-CT. When required, extraction of the foreign body should be done using a minimally invasive approach.

Nursing Management for Patients Postoperative Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Placement

As cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) continue to evolve and patients continue to live longer, the use of these devices increases. CIEDs include permanent pacemakers, implanted cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. Over the last 2 decades, the functionality of these devices has increased and can be complex. Critical care nurses should be equipped with the knowledge to care for patients immediately postoperative CIED placement and for patients admitted to critical care units with CIEDs already in place. Patients with CIEDs are a vulnerable population with special needs and considerations for management.

Reimplantation After Lead Removal

The number of implanted cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly in the last 30 years, which has led to an upsurge in CIED complications, such as infection and lead malfunction requiring CIED extraction. The decision-making process of CIED reimplantation requires meticulous planning that includes careful consideration of several aspects: the reason for extraction, the indication for CIED reimplantation, patients' wishes, timing of reimplantation, the need for a bridging device, and the type and location of device to be reimplanted. In this article, the authors review this decision-making process and the necessary steps to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infections

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasing and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This article reviews the epidemiology, microbiology, and risk factors for acquisition of these infections. The complex diagnostic and management strategies associated with these serious infections are reviewed with an emphasis on recent updates and advances, as well as existing controversies. Additionally, the latest in preventative strategies are reviewed.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Monitoring of Laser Lead Extraction by Femoral Route

A 72-year-old man with a dual-chamber implantable defibrillator was referred to our center for transvenous lead extraction because of pocket infection and presence of an abandoned lead. We decided to proceed with a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach because of patient history and documented complete occlusion of the right subclavian vein. During the use of excimer laser for persistent adhesions, the ventricular lead broke down at the level of cavoatrial junction. To successfully remove the remaining portion of lead, we decided to use the excimer laser by femoral route. A final angiography through the laser sheath showed the integrity of the myocardial wall. We report a case of laser-assisted transvenous lead extraction unconventionally performed by the femoral route. A preventive minimally invasive cardiac surgery was implemented to provide more safety in this high-risk procedure. This technique may avoid the need of a full sternotomy in case of major bleeding complications.

Consequences of Retained Defibrillator and Pacemaker Leads After Heart Transplantation-An Underrecognized Problem

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are common in patients undergoing heart transplantation (HT), and complete removal is not always possible at the time of transplantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the frequency of retained CIED leads and clinical consequences in consecutive HT patients from 2013 to 2016. Clinical outcomes included bacteremia, upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT), lead migration, and inability to perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients (55 ± 11 years of age, 76% male) were identified; 37 (27%) had retained lead fragments (RLFs) at discharge. Patients with RLFs were older, had longer lead implantation time before HT, and a higher prevalence of dual-coil CIED leads compared with those without RLFs (P < .05 for all). Lead implantation time was identified as an independent predictor for RLFs (P < .05). Patients with RLFs had a higher frequency of DVT compared with the non-RLF group during the 1-year study period (42% vs 21%; P < .04). There was no difference in bacteremia. Fourteen patients (38%) could not undergo clinically indicated MRI.

CONCLUSION

RLFs after HT occur commonly and are associated with a higher rate of UEDVT and limit the use of MRI. Although no significant difference was found in the rates of bacteremia between the groups, this finding might be explained by the overall low incidence. Patients with risk factors for RLFs should be identified before transplantation, and complete lead removal should be considered with a multidisciplinary approach.

Outcomes Associated With Extraction Versus Capping and Abandoning Pacing and Defibrillator Leads

Background:

Lead management is an increasingly important aspect of care in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices; however, relatively little is known about long-term outcomes after capping and abandoning leads.

Methods:

Using the 5% Medicare sample, we identified patients with de novo cardiac implantable electronic device implantations between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, and with a subsequent lead addition or extraction ≥12 months after the de novo implantation. Patients who underwent extraction for infection were excluded. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, device-related infection, device revision, and lead extraction at 1 and 5 years for the extraction versus the cap and abandon group.

Results:

Among 6859 patients, 1113 (16.2%) underwent extraction, whereas 5746 (83.8%) underwent capping and abandonment. Extraction patients tended to be younger (median, 78 versus 79 years; P <0.0001), were less likely to be male (65% versus 68%; P =0.05), and had shorter lead dwell time (median, 3.0 versus 4.0 years; P <0.0001) and fewer comorbidities. Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (25th, 75th percentiles, 1.0, 4.3 years), the overall 1-year and 5-year cumulative incidence of mortality was 13.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7–14.4) and 54.3% (95% CI, 52.8–55.8), respectively. Extraction was associated with a lower risk of device infection at 5 years relative to capping (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62–0.97; P =0.027). There was no association between extraction and mortality, lead revision, or lead extraction at 5 years.

Conclusions:

Elective lead extraction for noninfectious indications had similar long-term survival to that for capping and abandoning leads in a Medicare population. However, extraction was associated with lower risk of device infections at 5 years.