Is there an adverse outcome from abandoned pacing leads?

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

The 2017 Heart Rhythm Society 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 (hereafter referred to as redundant leads). However, no randomized or even nonrandomized trials 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. According to the literature, however, not all abandoned leads need to be extracted as >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 the 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.

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices and abandoned or epicardial leads: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Persistent reluctance to perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with abandoned and/or epicardial leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices is related to in vitro studies reporting tip heating. While there is a plethora of data on the safety of MRI in conditional and non-conditional implantable devices, there is a clear lack of safety data in patients with abandoned and/or epicardial leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Relevant literature was identified in Medline and CINAHL using the key terms 'magnetic resonance imaging' AND 'abandoned leads' OR 'epicardial leads'. Secondary literature and cross-references were supplemented. For reporting guidance, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 was used. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number 465530. Twenty-one publications with a total of 656 patients with 854 abandoned and/or epicardial leads and 929 MRI scans of different anatomical regions were included. No scan-related major adverse cardiac event was documented, although the possibility of under-reporting of critical events in the literature should be considered. Furthermore, no severe device dysfunction or severe arrhythmia was reported. Mainly transient lead parameter changes were observed in 2.8% in the subgroup of patients with functional epicardial leads. As a possible correlate of myocardial affection, subjective sensations occurred mainly in the subgroup with abandoned epicardial leads (4.0%), but no change in myocardial biomarkers was observed.

CONCLUSION

Existing publications did not report any relevant adverse events for MRI in patients with abandoned and/or epicardial leads if performed according to strict safety guidelines. However, a more rigorous risk-benefit calculation should be made for patients with epicardial leads.

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

Lead Extraction in Children and Young Adults: When is the Best Time for Lead/System Replacement?

The best strategy for lead management in children is a matter of debate, and our experiences are limited. This is a retrospective single-center study comparing difficulties and outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) implanted ich childhood and at age < 19 years (childhood-implanted-childhood-extracted, CICE) and at age < 19 (childhood-implanted-adulthood-extracted, CIAE). CICE patients-71 children (mean age 15.1 years) as compared to CIAE patients (114 adults (mean age 28.61 years) were more likely to have VVI than DDD pacemakers. Differences in implant duration (7.96 vs 14.08 years) appeared to be most important, but procedure complexity and outcomes also differed between the groups. Young adults with cardiac implantable electronic device implanted in childhood had more risk factors for major complications and underwent more complex procedures compared to children. Implant duration was significantly longer in CIAE patients than in children, being the most important factor that had an impact on patient safety and procedure complexity. CIAE patients were more likely to have prolonged operative duration and more complex procedures due to technical problems, and they were 2-3 times more likely to require second-line or advanced tools compared to children, but the rates of clinical and procedural success were comparable in both groups. The difference between the incidence of major complications between CICE and CIAE patients is very clear (MC 2.9 vs 7.0%, hemopericardium 1.4 vs 5.3% etc.), although statistically insignificant. Delay of lead extraction to adulthood seems to be a riskier option than planned TLE in children before growing up.

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.

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.

Application of Novel Technologies in Cardiac Electrotherapy to Prevent Complications

(1) Background: Cardiac electrotherapy is developing quickly, which implies that it will face a higher number of complications, with cardiac device-related infective endocarditis (CDRIE) being the most frequent, but not the only one. (2) Methods: This is a retrospective case study followed by a literature review, which presents a patient with a rare but dangerous complication of electrotherapy, which could have been prevented if modern technology had been used. (3) Results: A 34-year-old female was admitted with suspicion of CDRIE based on an unclear echocardiographic presentation. However, with no signs of infection, that diagnosis was not confirmed, though an endocardial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead was found folded into the pulmonary trunk. The final treatment included transvenous lead extraction (TLE) and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation. (4) Conclusions: With the increasing number of implantations of cardiac electronic devices and their consequences, a high index of suspicion among clinicians is required. The entity of the clinical picture must be thoroughly considered, and various diagnostic tools should be applied. Lead dislocation into the pulmonary trunk is an extremely rare complication. Our findings align with the available literature data, where asymptomatic cases are usually effectively treated with TLE. Modern technologies, such as S-ICD, can effectively prevent lead-related problems and are indicated in young patients necessitating long-term ICD therapy.

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.

Transvenous Lead Extraction in Adult Patient with Leads Implanted in Childhood-Is That the Same Procedure as in Other Adult Patients?

BACKGROUND

Lead management in children and young adults is still a matter of debate.

METHODS

To assess the course of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in adults with pacemakers implanted in childhood (CIP) we compared 98 CIP patients with a control group consisting of adults with pacemakers implanted in adulthood (AIP).

RESULTS

CIP patients differed from AIP patients with respect to indications for TLE and pacing history. CIP patients were four-eight times more likely to require second-line or advanced tools. Furthermore, CIP patients more often than AIP were prone to developing complications: major complications (MC) (any) 2.6 times; hemopericardium 3.2 times; severe tricuspid valve damage 4.4 times; need for rescue cardiac surgery 3.7 times. The rate of procedural success was 11% lower because of 4.8 times more common lead remnants and 3.1 times more frequent permanently disabling complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to system-related risk factors TLE in CIP patients is more difficult and complex. TLE in CIP is associated with an increased risk of MC and incomplete lead removal. A conservative strategy of lead management, acceptable in very old patients seems to be less suitable in CIP because it creates a subpopulation of patients at high risk of major complications during TLE in the future.

The use of laser lead extraction sheath in the presence of supra-cardiac occlusion of the central veins for cardiac implantable electronic device lead upgrade or revision

Background

The implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has increased in the last decades with improvement in the quality of life of patients with cardiac rhythm disorders. The presence of bilateral subclavian, innominate or superior vena cava obstruction is a major limitation to device revision and/or upgrade.

Methods and material

This is retrospective study of patients who underwent laser-assisted lead extraction (LLE) (GlideLight laser sheath, Spectranetics Corporation, Colorado Springs, USA) with lead revision or upgrade using the laser sheath as a guide rail. Patients with known occlusion, severe stenosis or functional obstruction of the venous access vessels with indwelling leads were included in this study.

Results

106 patients underwent percutaneous LLE with lead revision and/or upgrade. Preoperative known complete occlusion or severe stenosis of access veins was present in 23 patients (21.5%). More patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) underwent LLE (64.1%) than patients with CRT-Ds (24.5%) and pacemaker patients (11.3%). In total 172 leads were extracted: 79 (45.9%) single-coil defibrillator leads, 35 (20.3%) dual-coil defibrillator leads, 31 (18.0%) right atrial leads, 24 (13.9%) right ventricular leads and three (1.7%) malfunctional coronary sinus left ventricular pacing leads. The mean age of leads was 99.2±65.6 months. The implantation of new leads after crossing the venous stenosis/obstruction was successful in 98 (92.4%) cases. Postoperative complications were pocket hematoma in two cases and wound infection in one case. No peri-operative and no immediate postoperative death was recorded. One intraoperative superior vena cava tear was treated by immediate thoracotomy and surgical repair.

Conclusion

In a single-center study on LLE in the presence of supra-cardiac occlusion of the central veins for CIED lead upgrade and revision we could demonstrate a low procedural complication rate with no procedural deaths. Most of the leads could be completely extracted to revise or upgrade the system. Our study showed a low complication rate, with acceptable mortality rates.

Lead-related superior vena cava syndrome: Management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome includes the clinical sequalae of facial and bilateral upper extremity edema, dizziness, and occasional syncope. Historically, most cases have been associated with malignancy and treatment is palliative. However, cardiac device leads have been identified as important nonmalignant causes of this syndrome. There are little data on the effectiveness of venoplasty and lead extraction in the management of these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report the findings associated with the use of balloon angioplasty and lead extraction in the management of 17 patients with lead induced SVC syndrome.

METHODS

Data collected from January 2003 to July 2019 identified 17 cases of SVC syndrome at our tertiary center. Their outcomes were compared to a control group of patients without SVC syndrome. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 17 patients, 13 (76%) underwent transvenous lead extraction and venoplasty. Three patients (18%) were treated with venoplasty alone, and 1 patient (6%) underwent surgical SVC reconstruction. In 10 patients (59%), transvenous reimplantation was necessary. Symptom resolution was achieved in all 17 patients and confirmed at both 6 and 12 months' follow-up. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications associated with transvenous lead extraction for SVC syndrome vs control.

CONCLUSION

In patients with SVC syndrome, venoplasty and lead extraction are safe and effective for resolution of symptoms and maintaining SVC patency.

Extreme pacemaker reel syndrome in an elderly patient with cognitive impairment

Twiddler's syndrome is a rare cause of pacemaker failure, where patient manipulation of the pulse generator results in lead dislodgement or retraction. Variations in manifestation have been identified including reel syndrome, where rotation occurs around the transverse axis resulting in coiling of the leads, and ratchet syndrome where arm movement results in lead displacement. Device manipulation leading to device failure has been documented in up to 1.7% of implants, particularly in patients with large pockets or mental disorders. Such complications have serious consequences, particularly in pacing-dependent patients where loss of capture may result in asystole. This article reviews the case of an 84-year-old patient presenting at 8-month pacemaker follow-up in complete heart block with no evidence of pacemaker function.

Proposed treatment algorithm for cardiac device-related subclavian vein stenosis: a case series

Background

Subclavian vein obstruction may occur in patients with pacemaker leads, which may make the implantation of new pacemaker leads difficult.

Case summary

We report two cases in which upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker was challenging due to total central vein occlusion. In the first case, a 78-year-old woman with permanent pacemaker implantation, 5 years ago, was successfully treated by balloon venoplasty. In the second case, balloon venoplasty was unsuccessful in a 46-year-old woman who has received twice single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 12 years and 5 years ago, due to vessel crowding, so a contralateral side puncture, along with a tunnel technique, was performed to solve this problem.

Discussion

Cardiac implantable electronic device-related subclavian vein stenosis can present a challenge to common cardiac resynchronization therapy device upgrades in the absence of appropriate techniques.

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.

The role of transvenous lead extraction in the management of redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker and defibrillator leads post ELECTRa

Cardiac implantable electronic devices implantation rates have increased over the past decade due to broader indications and an ageing population. Similarly, device and lead complications have also risen. The management of pacemaker/defibrillator leads that are no longer required (redundant) or malfunctioning, can be contentious. There is a need to balance the risk of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) against those of lead abandonment. The recently published European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry (ELECTRa) study provides contemporary outcomes for TLE across Europe with important implications for the management of redundant and/or malfunctioning leads. This review article discusses the potential complications for each interventional approach when managing redundant or malfunctioning pacemaker leads.

Novel extraction technique of retained pacemaker and defibrillator lead during heart transplantation

Background

Removal of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) by manual traction during orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) sometimes results in retained lead fragments. Moreover, abandoned leads and retained lead fragments are a contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and may be a cause of CIED infection.

Objective

To eliminate complications of retained lead fragments, we completely removed residual leads using an excimer laser sheath technique during OHT. We report our clinical experience and high success rate of lead extraction using the excimer laser sheath compared with manual traction during OHT.

Methods and results

We obtained data on 84 consecutive patients receiving OHT between August 2007 and August 2017. Thirty-nine of 84 patients had undergone CIED implantation before OHT and removal of all their leads was attempted during OHT. From 2007 to 2014, defibrillator and pacemaker leads were extracted by manual traction in all patients (N = 22). After 2015, all leads were extracted with the excimer laser sheath, and surgical assistance was prepared for the procedure (N = 17). Complete procedural success was achieved in 100% of patients in the excimer laser group and 77% of patients in the manual traction group.

Conclusion

Extraction of abandoned leads using the excimer laser sheath system during OHT is novel and safe technique, and has a higher success rate than extraction using manual traction during OHT.

Frequency and clinical impact of retained implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead materials in heart transplant recipients

End-stage heart failure patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with/without cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) often require heart transplantation (HTPL) as a last-resort treatment. We aimed to assess the frequency and clinical impact of retained ICD lead materials in HTPL patients. In this retrospective single center study, we examined the clinical records and chest radiographs of patients with ICD and CRT-D who underwent HTPL between January 1992 and July 2014. Of 40 patients with ICD and CRT-D at HTPL, 19 (47.5%) patients had retained ICD lead materials within the central venous system. Retained ICD lead materials following HTPL were more frequently noted in patients with longer implantation durations until HTPL. None of the patients underwent extraction procedures after HTPL. All patients were asymptomatic and did not exhibit significant complications or death related to the retained ICD lead materials. Seven (7/40, 17.5%) patients without any retained ICD lead materials underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during the follow-up period (median, 29.5 months); none of the patients with retained lead materials were given MRI. Considering the common use of MRI in HTPL patients, further studies on the prophylactic extraction of retained ICD lead materials and safety of MRI in these patients are needed.

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

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the impact of previously abandoned leads on the clinical management of cardiac device infections, notably transvenous lead extraction and subsequent clinical course.

BACKGROUND

The population of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices continues to grow with a disproportionate increase in device infections, which are invariably life threatening. A potentially complicating issue is the widely practiced strategy of device lead abandonment at the time of system revision, change, or upgrade, which is affecting an increasing number of patients.

METHODS

The study assessed the impact of previously abandoned leads in a prospectively maintained registry of consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous extraction of infected cardiac devices at the Cleveland Clinic between August 1996 and September 2012. The primary clinical endpoint was complete procedural and clinical success defined as the successful removal of the device and all lead material from the vascular space, in the absence of a major complication.

RESULTS

Of 1,386 patients with infected cardiac devices, 323 (23.3%) had previously abandoned leads. Failure to achieve the primary endpoint occurred more frequently in patients with abandoned leads (13.0% vs. 3.7%; p < 0.0001). This was primarily due to retention of lead material (11.5% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001), which was associated with poor clinical outcomes including higher rates of 1-month mortality (7.4% vs. 3.5% in those without lead remnants). Lead extraction procedures in patients with previously abandoned leads were longer (p < 0.0001), with longer fluoroscopy times (p < 0.0001), and more likely to require specialized extraction tools (94.4% vs. 81.8%; p < 0.0001) or adjunctive rescue femoral workstations (14.9% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001). Procedural complications occurred more frequently in patients with previously abandoned leads (11.5% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.0003), which was true for both major (3.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.009) and minor complications (7.7% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Previously abandoned leads complicate the management of cardiac device infections, leading to worse clinical outcomes.

Extraction of sterile leads is the preferred approach rather than implanting a new lead: the con perspective

Lead malfunction is a common problem in implantable cardiac device patients and is expected to increase with the aging of leads. There is a weak indication for extraction of superfluous leads with the potential for cardiac implantable electronic device interference and abandoned or redundant leads; much remains to be learned from clinical practice. Lead extraction, although safe in experienced hands, remains a high-risk procedure, especially in lower-volume centers and/or when performed by lower-volume operators. Therefore, a strategy of abandoning nonfunctioning leads is reasonable, and lead extractions should be reserved for cases with system infection or high lead burden.

To extract or retain a sterile, nonfunctional lead: the case for extraction

Decision-making regarding extracting or abandoning sterile but nonfunctioning ICD leads has to be individualized. Providing recommendations to patients and their families requires a careful weighing of pros and cons and understanding of the availability of local expertise. Decision models to help with these clinical scenarios have started to become available but remain in their infancy.

A Questionable Indication For ICD Extraction After Successful VT Ablation

Sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias represent a kind of complication shared by a number of clinical presentations of heart disease, sometimes leading to sudden cardiac death. Many efforts have been made in the fight against such a complication, mainly being represented by the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In recent years, catheter ablation has grown as a means to effectively treat patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias, in the contest of different cardiac substrates. Since carrying an ICD is associated with a potential risk deriving from its possible infective or malfunctioning complications, and given the current effectiveness of lead extraction procedures, it has been thought not to be unreasonable to ask ourselves about how to deal with ICD patients who have been successfully treated by means of ablation of their ventricular arrhythmias. To date, no control data have been published on transvenous lead extraction in the setting of VT ablation. In this paper we will review the current evidence about ICD therapy, catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias and lead extraction, trying to outline some considerations about how to face this new clinical issue.

Managing patients with advisory defibrillator leads: what can we learn from published data?

Defibrillator lead advisories stir a lot of emotions, both with patients and physicians, and this may influence lead management. We reviewed the literature for a more evidence-based approach to this issue.

From the complications of two of the current advisory leads, the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis and St. Jude Riata leads, and the consequences of possible interventions, we can conclude that a restrained approach to premature replacement is appropriate. It may be opportune to replace the leads during a scheduled generator replacement in case of a higher electrical failure rate, in order to prevent future premature interventions.

We found no support to extract non-functional advisory leads. In contrast, extraction is often more demanding than anticipated, and the risk substantially exceeds that of simply abandoning the leads.

Extraction of chronically implanted cardiovascular electronic device leads

OPINION STATEMENT

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are a remarkable success story. These systems are widely used to prevent symptomatic bradycardia, treat malignant tachyarrhythmia, and to restore a more physiologic contraction to a failing left ventricle. Implantation of a CIED usually involves a lifelong commitment to this therapy, which, unfortunately, is not free from complication requiring removal and/or replacement of all or part of the system. The major obstacle to removal of a CIED is the fibrous attachments that develop between a lead and co-existent leads, veins, and the heart. This process increases over time such that, by one year, removal by traction alone may be problematic and, if aggressive, result in complication. Physicians, surgeons, and engineers have refined techniques of percutaneous lead extraction and developed tools, which have facilitated the process, increased success, and lowered the incidence of complication. Extraction may be performed for a variety of indications some of which are unanimously agreed upon while others remain controversial. Proponents of a broadened application of extraction have proffered the concept of 'lead management,' which includes the removal of all leads that are not clinically relevant to the patient. The benefit of this approach would be to limit the risk of future complication, such as venous occlusion or thromboembolism, and to obviate the increase in difficulty of extraction (due to longer implant duration) that might accompany removal should that be required in the future. Intuitively appealing as this approach might be, there is little evidence supporting it, and the extraordinarily large number of patients currently implanted with recalled ICD leads is indicative of the potential impact this practice may have. This review will discuss extraction, its indications, and outcomes.

Laser lead extraction to facilitate cardiac implantable electronic device upgrade and revision in the presence of central venous obstruction

Aims

The number of procedures involving upgrade or revision of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing and the risks of adding additional leads are significant. Central venous occlusion in patients with pre-existing devices is often asymptomatic and optimal management of such patients in need of device revision/upgrade is not clear. We sought to assess our use of laser lead extraction in overcoming venous obstruction.

Methods and results

Patients in need of device upgrade/revision underwent pre-procedure venography to assess venous patency. In patients with venous occlusion or stenosis severe enough to preclude passage of a hydrophilic guide wire, laser lead extraction with retention of the outer sheath in the vasculature was performed with the aim of maintaining a patent channel through which new leads could be implanted. Data were recorded on a dedicated database and patient outcomes were assessed. Between July 2004 and April 2012, laser lead extractions were performed in 71 patients scheduled for device upgrade/revision who had occluded or functionally obstructed venous anatomy. New leads were successfully implanted across the obstruction in 67 (94%) cases. There were two major complications (infection) and four minor complications with no peri-procedural mortality. Device follow-up was satisfactory in 65 (92%) cases with mean follow-up up to 26 ± 19 months.

Conclusion

Laser lead extraction is a safe and effective option when managing patients with central venous obstruction in need of CIED revision or upgrade.

Extraction of Sterile Leads: Is it Beneficial?

Extraction of sterile leads remains a controversial area. The risks and benefits of abandoning a lead are largely unknown, whereas the risks of lead extraction are better studied. Lead management decisions need to be made on a patient-by-patient basis, with important input from the patient and family. This article presents several representative cases and reviews the major considerations in making the decision of whether or not to extract a sterile lead that has become either no longer needed or no longer functional.

How Should Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Failures be Managed and What is the Role of Lead Extraction?

Despite remarkable advances in design, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads remain the component most susceptible to failure, which often leads to substantial adverse clinical outcomes. This article focuses on management strategies when ICD lead systems fail. Two cases involving management decisions for ICD lead failures are presented and discussed. One involves a common mode of presentation, inappropriate shocks. The second involves an alert in a patient with a complex system and multiple comorbidities. Although a systematic approach is outlined, management decisions must be balanced by a risk-and-benefit assessment of the individual patient.

In Vivo Stress Analysis of a Pacing Lead From an Angiographic Sequence

In this paper, a method is presented to analyze the mechanical stress distribution in a pacing lead based on a sequence of paired 2D angiographic images. The 3D positions and geometrical shapes of an implanted pacemaker lead throughout the cardiac cycle were generated using a previously validated 3D modeling technique. Based on the Frenet–Serret formulas, the kinematic property of the lead was derived and characterized. The distribution of curvature and twist angle per unit length in the pacing lead was calculated from a finite difference method, which enabled a rapid and effective computation of the mechanical stress in the pacing lead. The analytical solution of the helix deformation geometry was used to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed numerical method, and an excellent agreement in curvature, twist angle, and stresses was achieved. As demonstrated in the example, the proposed technique can be used to analyze the complex movement and deformation of the implanted pacing lead in vivo. The information can facilitate the future development of pacing leads.

Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: the LExICon study: an observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the safety and efficacy of laser-assisted lead extraction and the indications, outcomes, and risk factors in a large series of consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND

The need for lead extraction has been increasing in direct relationship to the increased numbers of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing transvenous laser-assisted lead extraction at 13 centers were included.

RESULTS

Between January 2004 and December 2007, 1,449 consecutive patients underwent laser-assisted lead extraction of 2,405 leads (20 to 270 procedures/site). Median implantation duration was 82.1 months (0.4 to 356.8 months). Leads were completely removed 96.5% of the time, with a 97.7% clinical success rate whereby clinical goals associated with the indication for lead removal were achieved. Failure to achieve clinical success was associated with body mass index <25 kg/m(2) and low extraction volume centers. Procedural failure was higher in leads implanted for >10 years and when performed in low volume centers. Major adverse events in 20 patients were directly related to the procedure (1.4%) including 4 deaths (0.28%). Major adverse effects were associated with patients with a body mass index <25 kg/m(2). Overall all-cause in-hospital mortality was 1.86%; 4.3% when associated with endocarditis, 7.9% when associated with endocarditis and diabetes, and 12.4% when associated with endocarditis and creatinine > or =2.0. Indicators of all-cause in-hospital mortality were pocket infections, device-related endocarditis, diabetes, and creatinine > or =2.0.

CONCLUSIONS

Lead extraction employing laser sheaths is highly successful with a low procedural complication rate. Total mortality is substantially increased with pocket infections or device-related endocarditis, particularly in the setting of diabetes, renal insufficiency, or body mass index <25 kg/m(2). Centers with smaller case volumes tended to have a lower rate of successful extraction.