Progressive atrial lead perforation developed 5 years after pacemaker replacement

A screw-type pacemaker lead implanted in the right atrium perforated the ascending aorta

BACKGROUND

Perforation by pacemaker leads, although rare, is a complication reported since the introduction of pacemaker therapy. Although historically reported frequencies were as high as 5%, recent reports have cited frequencies ranging from 1 to 2%. We report a case where a screw-type atrial lead slightly penetrated the right atrial wall, causing chronic abrasion of the ascending aorta, resulting in shock.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 54-year-old male presented with dilated cardiomyopathy diagnosed at 40 years of age when he developed decompensated heart failure. Despite ongoing treatment, his heart failure worsened, leading to hospitalization at the age of 54. During his hospital stay, he experienced cardiac arrest that required cardiopulmonary resuscitation, followed by a return of spontaneous circulation. He was subsequently transferred to our institution after initiation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Echocardiography revealed an ejection fraction of 25%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter of 60 mm, and severe mitral regurgitation (MR). Transcatheter mitral valve repair was performed to treat severe MR, followed by implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D). Three months later, the patient was brought to our emergency department by ambulance because of hypotension. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed pericardial effusion causing cardiac tamponade, necessitating emergency pericardial decompression via left fourth intercostal mini-thoracotomy and drain placement. Upon transfer to the intensive care unit, 1200 mL of blood was drained from the chest tube, prompting a return to the operating room for a median sternotomy. It was discovered that the pacemaker lead on the left side of the right atrium had slowly eroded into the aorta, leading to perforation. The ascending aorta was repaired and hemostasis was achieved; the patient recovered uneventfully and was discharged on postoperative day 18.

CONCLUSIONS

The pacemaker lead perforated the right atrium; chronic abrasion of the lead against the ascending aorta resulted in bleeding from the ascending aorta 3 months later.

Atrial lead perforation early after device implantation-a case report and literature review

We report three patients with screw-in lead perforation in the right atrial free wall not long after device implantation. All the patients complained of intermittent stabbing chest pain associated with deep breathing during the implantation. The "dry" epicardial puncture was utilized to avoid hemopericardium during lead extraction in the first case. The atrial electrode was repositioned in all cases and replaced by a new passive fixation lead in two patients with resolution of the pneumothorax or pericardial effusion. A literature review of 50 reported cases of atrial lead perforation was added to the findings in our case report.

Case report: A rare complication after the implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device: Contralateral pneumothorax with pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) including pacemakers (PM), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronized therapy (CRT) have become the mainstay of therapy for many cardiac conditions, consequently drawing attention to the risks and benefits of these procedures. Although CIED implantation is usually a safe procedure, pneumothorax remains an important complication and may contribute to increased morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and hospital costs. On the other hand, pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum are rare but potentially fatal complications. Accordingly, a high degree of awareness about these complications is important. Pneumothorax almost always occurs on the ipsilateral side of implantation. The development of contralateral pneumothorax is uncommon and may be undetected on an initial chest radiograph. Contralateral pneumothorax with concurrent pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum is much rarer. We describe a rare case of concurrent right-sided pneumothorax with pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum after left-sided pacemaker implantation and highlight the risk factors, management, and possible ways to prevent the complications.

EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Bilateral Pneumothorax Complicating Pacemaker Implantation, due to Puncture of the Left Subclavian Vein and Electrode Perforation of the Right Atrium

Pneumothorax occurs mostly due to needle injury of the pleura when trying to get access to the subclavian vein and rarely due to electrode perforation. The present case report is the first case presented about acute simultaneous iatrogenic bilateral pneumothorax due to puncture of the left subclavian vein and electrode perforation of the atrial wall, the pericardium, and the pleura. Risk factors, and how to avoid these complications, are highlighted, and symptoms, diagnostics, and management of pneumothorax and cardiac perforation are described.

Late asymptomatic atrial lead perforation, a fortuitous finding during lead extraction using thoracoscopic surveillance: a case report and review of the literature

A 61-year-old male patient was referred for lead extraction of an infected two-chamber pacemaker system first implanted 18 years ago. A new atrial lead was implanted 9 years later because of loss of capture of the original lead. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) that we use in high-risk cases showed extensive fibrous adhesion between the right atrium wall and the right lung. Dissection of the adhesion revealed the presence of an atrial lead perforated into the lung. After cutting off the lead tip, the residual lead was removed endovascularly from the subclavian site. A literature review of 25 reported cases of late atrial lead perforation was added to the findings in our case report.

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.