A Strategy of Lead Abandonment in a Large Cohort of Patients With Sprint Fidelis Leads

When pacing or defibrillator leads become redundant: extract or abandon?

The 2017 HRS expert consensus paper on lead management and extraction did not express a preference for either extracting or abandoning pacing or defibrillator leads that are dysfunctional or superfluous after an upgrade (further referred to as redundant leads) 1. However, there are no randomized or even non-randomized trials that show a better patient outcome with extraction. Many experienced centers currently advise patients to have redundant leads removed to prevent more complicated procedures after years of abandonment. But according to the literature not all abandoned leads need to be extracted as more than 90% will have an uneventful follow-up. As immediate extraction of redundant leads has a small but significant risk this will generate more adverse events at population level than when extraction is limited to the patients with future lead complications, even considering a higher extraction risk at that time. Lead extraction is also limited to specialized centers and often necessitates expensive tools, in contrast to abandoning leads which can be safely performed by any experienced device specialist without additional cost.

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.

Comparative outcomes of Riata and Fidelis lead management strategies: Results from the NCDR-ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® and Abbott Riata®/Riata ST® leads are at risk of failure and are subject to FDA recall. Comparative risks of various lead management strategies during elective generator change in a multi-center population are unknown. We aim to describe patients with functional, recalled ICD leads undergoing elective generator replacement and report outcomes according to lead management strategies.

METHODS

Using data from the NCDR ICD Registry, patients with a functioning Riata® or Fidelis® lead undergoing generator replacement are described according to lead management: reuse, abandon/replace, and extract/replace. Adjusted rates of death and pre-discharge complications are reported.

RESULTS

There were 13,144 generator replacement procedures involving a functioning, non-infected Riata® or Fidelis® lead (extraction n = 414, abandonment n = 427). Extraction patients were younger (mean 58 vs. 67 years) with fewer comorbidities than the reuse group. Maximum lead dwell time was similar between groups with average 94, 90, and 99 months in the extraction, abandonment, and reuse groups, respectively. In-hospital complications or mortality were more common in the extraction group (10.14%, 4.35%) compared with abandonment (1.64%, 0.47%) and reuse (0.22%, 0.07%). Compared with reuse, the adjusted odds of death or pre-discharge complication were significantly higher in the extraction group (OR 7.77 95% CI 2.42-24.95, p < .001) but not the abandonment group (OR 1.70 95% CI 0.52-5.61, p = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world population, extraction of functional recalled ICD leads was associated with significant risk of in-hospital mortality and complications. Additional work is needed to clarify whether longer term outcomes balance these peri-procedural risks.

Transvenous lead extraction in 1000 patients guided by intraprocedural risk stratification without surgical backup

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Reliable preprocedural risk predictors to guide resource allocation and optimize procedural safety are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate an intraprocedural approach to risk stratification during elective TLE procedures.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent elective TLE of a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead for noninfectious indications. The risk of TLE is judged intraprocedurally only after an attempt is made to extract the target lead as long as high-risk extraction techniques are avoided. TLE was performed in a well-equipped electrophysiology laboratory with rescue strategies in place but in the absence of surgical staff.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1000 patients were included in this analysis (527 female (52.7%); mean age 61.5 ± 10.2 years). TLE was attempted for 1362 leads, with a mean lead dwell time of 73 ± 43 months (median 70 months; interquartile range 12-180 months). TLE was successful in 914 patients, partially successful in 10, and failed in 76 patients. A laser sheath was required for extraction of 926 leads (68%). Only 1 patient developed intraprocedural cardiac tamponade requiring emergency pericardiocentesis. None of the patients developed hemothorax or required surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

At experienced centers, intraprocedural risk stratification for TLE that avoids high-risk extraction techniques achieved successful TLE in the majority of patients and can potentially help optimize the balance between efficacy, safety, and efficiency in lead extraction.