Asymptomatic right ventricular perforation by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead detected by home monitoring system

Case report: Left ventricular perforation caused by right ventricular pacemaker lead

Background

Perforation of the interventricular septum and left ventricular (LV) free wall by a right ventricular (RV) lead is an extremely rare and potentially life-threatening complication. In this case report, we discussed the diagnosis and management of a very unusual complication of pacemaker (PM) implantation, i.e., LV perforation brought on by an RV pacing lead.

Case summary

A 92-year-old man was admitted to Xiangyang No.1 People's Hospital due to a complete atrioventricular block. We performed a dual-chamber PM implantation; however, on the second postoperative day (POD), pacemaker failure occurred. Thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan showed that RV lead had pierced the interventricular septum and LV free wall. A transvenous lead extraction of the penetrating lead was performed uneventfully, and RV lead was refixed at the lower RV septum on the 5th POD.

Discussion

Identification of high-risk patients is mandatory to prevent this serious complication, and transvenous lead extraction with cardiac surgery backup may be an option.

Ventricular pacemaker lead in the left hemithorax: Mechanisms and evidence-based management of a late-onset hazardous complication

Late-onset migration of pacing leads in the left hemithorax is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Radiological examinations are required to detect any involvement of either left ventricle or lung parenchyma, prompting immediate surgical extraction in this setting. Identification of high-risk patients is mandatory to prevent this complex iatrogenic complication.

Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction in patients with lead perforation: A single-center experience

Background

Management of cardiac perforation caused by the lead of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is currently unclear. This study evaluated the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with cardiac perforation caused by a transvenous lead.

Hypothesis

Removal of perforated lead by transvenous approach is safe and effective.

Methods

The medical records of all patients diagnosed with cardiac perforation by a pacing or defibrillator lead in Peking University People's Hospital from January 2008 to January 2019 were reviewed. We included patients who were managed by TLE.

Results

A total of 53 patients (30 men; mean age: 67 ± 15 years) with lead perforation managed by TLE were included. Most of the perforated leads (94.9%) were pacemaker leads. Forty‐three leads (81.1%) were implanted within 1 year. Ten patients with a high risk of hemopericardium underwent percutaneous subxiphoid pericardial puncture prior to TLE. All 53 culprit leads were removed completely without major complications. Simple traction with or without a locking stylet was sufficient in 51 patients (96.2%). Forty‐eight patients (90.6%) had a new active‐fixation lead reimplanted. No patients showed evidence of new‐onset or worsening pericardial effusion during the procedure and hospital stay. During a median follow‐up time of 16 months, no recurrence of symptoms associated with lead perforation or CIED‐related infection were reported.

Conclusion

In most patients with lead perforation, TLE can be a safe and effective management approach.

Delayed right ventricular defibrillation lead perforation presenting as cardiac tamponade and treated surgically

Right ventricular perforation leading to cardiac tamponade can occur during the chronic phase after cardiac device implantation. Physicians who manage the pacemaker clinic must be alert to the wide range of symptoms and signs that can accompany delayed right ventricular perforation. Surgical rather than percutaneous lead extraction may be prudent.

Incidence, management, and prevention of right ventricular perforation by pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads

BACKGROUND

Cardiac perforation of the right ventricle (RV) is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of both pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant. Appropriate management is still uncertain. We assessed the incidence of subacute (24 hours-1 month) or delayed (>1 month) cardiac perforation by RV lead and the results of percutaneous lead extraction.

METHOD

The study population included all patients diagnosed with subacute or delayed RV-lead perforation during the period 2007-2013. The incidence of perforation according to device type and fixation mechanism was calculated. The outcome of the percutaneous approach, consisting of lead extraction by simple traction, was assessed.

RESULTS

Cardiac perforation was diagnosed in 14 (eight females, mean age 71 [range 47-83] years) patients out of 3,815 who received an RV-lead implant (0.4%). The overall incidence of RV-lead perforation was similar between ICD (0.3%) and PM (0.4%) implants (P = 1.0) and between active (0.5%) and passive (0.3%) fixation leads (P = 0.3). All perforating leads were originally placed at the RV apex. Five patients were asymptomatic, but all presented altered lead electrical parameters. Surgical removal of the lead was performed in one patient while in the remaining the leads were successfully extracted by direct manual traction in the absence of any complications. In all patients, new active fixation leads were positioned in the RV septum and the follow-up (42 ± 27 months) was uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

RV perforation is a rare complication of both PM and ICD implants, regardless of the lead fixation mechanism. In most patients, percutaneous lead extraction is a safe and effective management approach.

Outcomes of lead revision for myocardial perforation after cardiac implantable electronic device placement

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac perforation is an infrequent but potentially life-threatening complication associated with placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of percutaneous lead revision in patients who had lead perforation of the myocardium after CIED placement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed records of 1,458 patients who underwent CIED lead extraction or repositioning. Of these, 31 (2.1%) had the procedure performed for lead perforation as a complication of CIED placement. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up characteristics of the patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) patient age was 65 (23) years. Cardiac perforation was detected within 24 hours after implantation in 9 patients, within 1 month in 17, and greater than 1 month in 5. Pericardiocentesis was performed with a pigtail drainage catheter in place before the lead revision in 17 patients (55%) who had pericardial effusion, with or without hemodynamic compromise. All culprit leads were successfully managed with percutaneous lead removal (n = 3 [10%]), new lead placement (n = 12 [38%]), or lead repositioning (n = 16 [52%]). Of the 17 patients with pericardiocentesis before the reoperation, none had tamponade develop; in contrast, 3 of the remaining 14 patients had tamponade develop and required urgent pericardiocentesis. All patients survived without requiring open chest surgery.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous removal or repositioning of the perforating lead is feasible and appears effective. Placement of a prophylactic pericardial drain catheter may reduce the incidence of urgent pericardiocentesis during or after a procedure.