Nonthoracotomy Implantable Defibrillator Lead Extraction:. Results and Comparison with Extraction of Pacemaker Leads

Comparison of outcomes and required tools between transvenous extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: Insight from single high-volume center experience

INTRODUCTION

Reports of comparison with procedural outcomes for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker (PM) transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are old and limited. We sought to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural properties of ICD and PM TLE and assess the impact of lead age.

METHODS

The study cohort included all consecutive patients with ICD and PM TLE in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry between 2013 and 2022. Extraction success, complications, and failure employed the definitions described in the HRS 2017 TLE guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 885 ICD leads, a median implant duration of 8 (5-11) years in 810 patients, and 1352 PM leads of 7 (3-13) years in 807 patients were included. Procedural success rates in ICD patients were superior to those of PM in >20 years leads but similar in ≤20 years leads. In the PM group, the complete success rate of TLE decreased significantly according to the increase of lead age, but not in the ICD group. ICD TLE required more extraction tools compared with PM TLE but cases with older leads required non-laser sheath extraction tools in both groups. The most common injury site in major complication cases differed between ICD and PM TLE, although major complication rates showed no difference in both groups (2.7% vs. 1.6%, p = .12).

CONCLUSION

The procedural success rate by TLE is greater for ICD patients than PM patients with leads >20 years old but requires more extraction tools. Common vascular complication sites and the impact of lead age on procedural outcomes and required tools differed between ICD and PM TLE.

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is considered as more risky. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with infected CRT systems. Methods: Data of 3468 patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center in years 2006−2021 were analyzed. The clinical and procedural parameters as well as the efficacy and safety of TLE were compared between patients with infected CRT and pacemakers (PM) and ICD systems. Results: Infectious indications for TLE occurred in 1138 patients, including 150 infected CRT (112 CRT-D and 38 CRT-P). The general health condition of CRT patients was worse with higher Charlson’s comorbidity index. The number of extracted leads was higher in the CRT group, but implant duration was significantly longer in the PM than in the ICD and CRT groups (98.93 vs. 55.26 vs. 55.43 months p < 0.01). The procedure was longer in duration, more difficult, and more complex in patients with pacemakers than in those in the CRT group. The occurrence of major complications and clinical and procedural success as well as procedure-related death did not show any relationship to the type of CIED device. Mortality at more than one-year follow-up after TLE was significantly higher among patients with CRT devices (22.7% vs. 8.7%) than among those in the PM group. Conclusion: Despite the greater burden of lead and comorbidities, the complexity and efficiency of removing infected CRT systems is no more dangerous than removing other infected systems. The duration of the implant seems to play a dominant role.

Outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic device transvenous lead extractions performed in centers without onsite cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

While major complications associated with CIED lead extractions are uncommon, they carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality in the absence of surgical intervention. However, there is limited data on the differences in outcomes of these procedures between centers with and without on-site CS support. The present study examined outcomes of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extractions according to admitting hospitals' cardiac surgery (CS) facilities.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample for CIED lead extraction procedures, stratified by hospitals' CS facilities into two groups; on-site and off-site CS. Logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the adjusted odds (aOR) of procedure-related complications in off-site CS centers.

RESULTS

In 221,606 procedures over an 11-year-period, CIED lead extractions were increasingly undertaken in on-site as opposed to off-site CS centers (Onsite CS 2004 vs. 2014: 78.2% vs. 90.4%, p < 0.001) during the study period. In comparison to on-site CS group, patients admitted to off-site CS group were older, less comorbid, and experienced lower adjusted odds of major adverse cardiovascular events (0.72 [0.67, 0.77]), mortality (0.60 [0.52, 0.69]), procedure-related bleeding (0.48 [0.44, 0.54]) and complications (thoracic: 0.81 [0.75, 0.88]; cardiac: 0.45 [0.38, 0.54]) (p < 0.001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Our national analysis demonstrates that transvenous CIED lead extractions are being increasingly undertaken in centers with on-site CS surgery, in compliance with international guideline recommendations. Patients managed with lead extractions in on-site CS centers are more comorbid and critically ill compared to those admitted to off-site CS centers, and remain at a higher risk of procedure-related complications.

Overcoming the current issues surrounding device leads: reducing the complications during extraction

INTRODUCTION

The implantation rate of cardiac implantable electronic devices has consistently increased in the last 20 years, as have the related complication rates. The most relevant issue is the removal of pacing and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, which a few months after implantation tend to develop intravascular fibrosis, often making extraction a challenging and risky procedure. Areas covered: The transvenous lead extraction (TLE) scenario is constantly evolving. TLE is a key procedure in lead management strategies. Many efforts have been made to develop new TLE approaches and techniques allowing a safe and effective procedure for patients. The increasing rate of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations and of CIED related complications highlight the importance of TLE. Lead related- and patient-related factors may change the future of extractions. We review the current status of TLE, focusing on the strategies available to perform the optimal procedure in the right patient and reducing procedure related complications. Expert commentary: Understanding the importance of an accurate TLE risk stratification is mandatory to optimize the procedural risk-to-benefits ratio. The use of adequate tools, techniques and approaches, and appropriate training are cornerstones for the achievement of safer procedures.

Impact of ICD lead on the system durability, predictors of long-term survival following ICD system extraction

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) systems are considered as having higher risk of complication and shorter durability but reasons of this multifactorial phenomenon remain unclear. We aimed to analyze this problem in population of patients with ICD leads referred for lead extraction (TLE).

METHODS

We have compared TLE indications, procedural results, and defined the long-term outcomes of TLE in patients with ICD/CRT-D devices (n  =  482, ICD (+)) with lead extractions in patients with standard pacemakers (n  =  1,402, ICD (-)). Demographic, clinical characteristics, and procedural outcomes were ascertained from single, primary operator registry. Long-term survival data were provided by the National Health Fund.

RESULTS

The ICD (+) subgroup had a significantly higher incidence rate of either infective or noninfective indications for TLE. The clinical success rate of extraction was 99.2% in ICD (+) versus 97.4% in ICD (-) (P  =  0.05) at a complication rate of 1.04% versus 2.14% (NS), respectively. In the median follow-up of 3.39 years, 142 patients from the ICD (+) subgroup and 303 from the ICD (-) subgroup died. The highest mortality rate of 41.1% was observed in the ICD (+) subgroup with infective indications. Infection, renal failure, diabetes, and age were the multivariate factors associated with increased mortality in the ICD (+) subgroup.

CONCLUSION

ICD leads remain more vulnerable, with respect to mechanical failure and their propensity to infection, in comparison to pacing leads. Their TLE is very effective at least complication rate, when performed by a highly skilled and experienced operator. However, long-term mortality after their TLE is high and is affected mostly by infections or patient-related factors.

Lead Extraction Considerations for the Referring Cardiologist

The population of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) continues to grow due to increasing indications in an aging population and breakthroughs in both the medical and the surgical care of patients with heart disease. As a result, there has been a growing need for device and lead extractions due to the growing population of patients with CIEDs and the subsequent need for system upgrades or revisions because of complications, infections, and lead advisory alerts.

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.

Safety of transvenous lead extraction according to centre volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex invasive procedure and the experience of the operator and the team is a major determinant of procedural outcomes.

AIM

Because of very limited data available on minimum procedural volumes to enable training and ongoing competency for TLEs, we performed a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the outcomes of TLE in the centres with low, medium, and high volume of procedures.

METHODS

Of the 280 papers initially retrieved until February 2013, 66 observational studies met inclusion criteria and were included in at least one stratified meta-analysis: 17 were prospective studies; 47 had a retrospective design; and 2 were defined 'experience studies'. We included only articles published after the introduction of laser technique (year 1999). We divided the studies in low, medium, and high volume centres utilizing either the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) or Lexicon classification criteria.

RESULTS

When meta-analyses were carried out separately for the studies with larger and smaller sample sizes, either using EHRA or Lexicon classification criteria, no clear differences emerged in the combined rate of major complications or intraoperative deaths. In contrast, both minor complications and mortality at 30 days decreased as centre volume increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In our meta-analysis of observational studies, patients who have been treated in higher volume centres have a lower probability of minor complications and death at 30 days regardless of the infection rate, length of lead duration, type of device, and type of extraction.

From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction

Percutaneous lead extraction is considered a safe and effective procedure, although published results derive primarily from cohort studies. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years' experience in this field, to give an objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. Moreover, the subsequent metaregression analysis enabled the identification of the main factors influencing these results: patient age, presence of leads in situ for more than 1 year, presence of device infection and use of laser sheath. These findings are significant in order to improve our extraction approach, data reporting and future research.

Comparison of standard and modified transvenous techniques for complex pacemaker lead extractions in the context of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections: a 10-year experience

AIMS

Complete lead extraction of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) for device-related infections remains a complex procedure for chronically implantated leads. We present data from a single-centre registry of consecutive patients with extractions over 10 years.

METHOD AND RESULTS

Patients were identified from the centre's electronic database with CIED-related infections who underwent lead extraction using either the standard technique and equipment or a modified innovative transvenous lead technique extraction using an ablation catheter. Of 151 patients with CIED-related infections, not responding to simple manual traction to effect lead extraction, average age 65 ± 8 years (range 45-82), 64% being male, 75 underwent standard (S) extraction, and 76 underwent modified (M) extraction. Procedural, lead extraction, and fluoroscopy exposure times with S and M methods, respectively, were 65 ± 14 vs. 52 ± 6 min (P < 0.01), 56 ± 12 vs. 36 ± 8 min (P < 0.001), and 48 ± 12 vs. 31 ± 7 min (P < 0.001). Retrieval rates were numerically lower with the standard technique at 92 vs. 96% but did not achieve significance, with respective complication rates of 6.7 and 5.3%.

CONCLUSION

In our single-centre study, a modified extraction technique to retrieve leads for infections of CIEDs using a steerable ablation catheter has improved procedural parameters over the standard technique, without compromising clinical lead extraction success rates. This may be a promising approach for a future, prospective trial.

Large, single-center experience in transvenous coronary sinus lead extraction: procedural outcomes and predictors for mechanical dilatation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate procedural outcomes of coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction, focusing on predictors and need for mechanical dilatation (MD) in the event that manual traction (MT) is ineffective.

METHODS

The study assessed results in 145 consecutive patients (age 69 ± 10 years; 121 men)--a total of 147 CS pacing leads--who underwent transvenous CS lead removal between January 2000 and March 2010.

RESULTS

All leads but one (99%) (implantation time 29 ± 25 months) were successfully removed. MT was effective in 103 (70%), and MD was necessary in the remaining 44 (30%) procedures. In multivariate analyses, unipolar design (odds ratio [OR] 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-7.7; P = 0.005) and noninfective indication (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-13, P = 0.002) were independent predictors for MD (P < 0.0001), with a predictive trend for prior cardiac surgery (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.98-5.26; P = 0.06). Five (3.4%) complex procedures required a transfemoral vein approach (TFA) or repeat procedure. No deaths occurred, and there was one major complication (0.7%), cardiac tamponade, after MT. No complication predictors were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

CS leads were safely and effectively removed in nearly all patients, and 70% were removed with MT alone; 30% required MD. Preoperative predictors suggesting the need for MD or TFA were noninfective indication and unipolar lead design. Complications were rare, and there was no predictable pattern among MT or MD removal techniques.

Lead Extraction in Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Patients

Background—

Transvenous pacemaker and defibrillator implantation is an expanding practice in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients, and given the finite longevity of current lead designs, lead extraction is an eventuality for a significant subset of these patients. Data on the safety and efficacy of different lead extraction techniques in this specific patient population are limited.

Methods and Results—

We report our experience from a single-center cohort study with a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on all lead extractions performed between January 2002 and December 2008. Lead extraction procedures involved a total of 144 patients and 203 leads. Of these, 61 patients (42%) were female and 86 (60%) had structural heart disease. Successful simple extraction, requiring the use of only a nonlocking stylet, was achieved in 59 (29%) leads. Of the remaining leads, 35 were abandoned and 109 underwent complex extraction techniques, including a radiofrequency-powered sheath used in 78 of 109 leads. Successful extraction was achieved in 80% (162/203) of all leads and 94% (103/109) of leads undergoing a complex extraction. On multivariable analysis, older lead age (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.0001), ventricular lead position (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.79; P =0.015), and polyurethane insulation (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.80; P =0.017) were found to be associated with a decreased likelihood of simple extraction. There were 4 major and 4 minor procedural complications involving 8 patients and no procedure-related deaths. On univariate analysis, lead age (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.50; P =0.002) was the only factor associated with procedural complications.

Conclusions—

The majority of leads implanted in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients can be extracted successfully; however, the procedure carries a risk of serious complications. Older lead age, ventricular leads, and polyurethane insulation were independent predictors of the decreased likelihood of an extraction by simple traction.

Deaths and cardiovascular injuries due to device-assisted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker lead extraction

AIMS

An estimated 10,000-15,000 pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are extracted annually worldwide using specialized tools that disrupt encapsulating fibrous tissue. Additional information is needed regarding the safety of the devices that have been approved for lead extraction. The aim of this study was to determine whether complications due to device-assisted lead extraction might be more hazardous than published data suggest, and whether procedural safety precautions are effective.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturers and User Defined Experience (MAUDE) database from 1995 to 2008 using the search terms 'lead extraction and death' and 'lead extraction and injury'. Additional product specific searches were performed for the terms 'death' and 'injury'. Between 1995 and 2008, 57 deaths and 48 serious cardiovascular injuries associated with device-assisted lead extraction were reported to the FDA. Owing to underreporting, the FDA database does not contain all adverse events that occurred during this period. Of the 105 events, 27 deaths and 13 injuries occurred in 2007-2008. During these 2 years, 23 deaths were linked with excimer laser or mechanical dilator sheath extractions. The majority of deaths and injuries involved ICD leads, and most were caused by lacerations of the right atrium, superior vena cava, or innominate vein. Overall, 62 patients underwent emergency surgical repair of myocardial perforations and venous lacerations and 35 (56%) survived.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that device-assisted lead extraction is a high-risk procedure and that serious complications including death may not be mitigated by emergency surgery. However, skilled standby cardiothoracic surgery is essential when performing pacemaker and ICD lead extractions. Although the incidence of these complications is unknown, the results of our study imply that device-assisted lead extractions should be performed by highly qualified physicians and their teams in specialized centres.

[ICD lead defects: diagnosis and therapeutical options]

The number of cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) implantations has been steadily increasing; thus, ICD lead-associated complications are an important issue. No clear recommendations for the diagnosis and management are available. This article gives an overview of how to diagnose and manage an ICD lead defect. Possible therapeutic options are discussed by reviewing the literature.

Transvenous removal of pacing and implantable cardiac defibrillating leads using single sheath mechanical dilatation and multiple venous approaches: high success rate and safety in more than 2000 leads

AIMS

The aim of the present study was to describe a 10 years single-centre experience in pacing and defibrillating leads removal using an effective and safe modified mechanical dilatation technique.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a single mechanical dilating sheath extraction technique with multiple venous entry site approaches. We performed a venous entry site approach (VEA) in cases of exposed leads and an alternative transvenous femoral approach (TFA) combined with an internal transjugular approach (ITA) in the presence of very tight binding sites causing failure of VEA extraction or in cases of free-floating leads. We attempted to remove 2062 leads [1825 pacing and 237 implantable cardiac defibrillating (ICD) leads; 1989 exposed at the venous entry site and 73 free-floating] in 1193 consecutive patients. The VEA was effective in 1799 leads, the TFA in 28, and the ITA in 205; in the overall population, we completely removed 2032 leads (98.4%), partially removed 18 (0.9%), and failed to remove 12 leads (0.6%). Major complications were observed in eight patients (0.7%), causing three deaths (0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical single sheath extraction technique with multiple venous entry site approaches is effective, safe, and with a good cost effective profile for pacing and ICD leads removal.

Do abandoned leads pose risk to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients?

BACKGROUND

With the increased number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients and the frequent need for device upgrading, lead malfunction is a concern, but the optimal approach to managing nonfunctioning leads is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the rate and characteristics of complications related to abandoned ICD leads.

METHODS

Patients with abandoned leads were identified by retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic ICD database from August 1993 to May 2002. We reviewed the medical records to assess long-term follow-up for venous thromboembolic complications, device sensing malfunction, appropriateness of delivered shocks, defibrillation threshold (DFT) values before and after lead abandonment, and subsequent surgical procedures related to devices or leads.

RESULTS

We identified 78 ICD patients (81% males; mean age 63 +/- 14 years) with 101 abandoned leads (69 in the right ventricle, 31 in the right atrium or superior vena cava, 1 in the coronary sinus). During a mean follow-up of 3.1 +/- 2.0 years, neither sensing malfunction nor venous thromboembolic complications were detected. DFT values were high in 13 patients (17%), but there was no significant increase in mean DFT values before and after lead abandonment in 43 patients for whom both values were available (16.2 +/- 9.2 J before abandonment vs 14.1 +/- 5.5 J after; P = .24). Fourteen patients (18%) required further ICD-related surgery; none of these operations were attributed to abandoned leads. Five-year rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks were 25.9% and 20.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Abandoning a nonfunctioning lead appears to be safe and does not pose a clinically significant additional risk of future complications.

Two Different Therapeutic Strategies in ICD Lead Defects: Additional Combined LeadVersus Replacement of the Lead

OBJECTIVES

Implantation of an additional HV-P/S lead versus extraction of the defective HV-P/S lead and implantation of a new one is one possible therapeutic approach in cases of a defective high-voltage pace/sense lead (HV-P/S). No information is available on potential differences in clinical outcome in these different approaches.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and February 2006, 86 patients with HV-P/S lead defect received either an additional transvenous HV-P/S lead (n = 33, group 1) or the HV-P/S lead was replaced (n = 53, group 2). The duration of the initially implanted leads was significantly different in the two groups (7.4 +/- 2.9; group 1 and 4.1 +/- 3.4 years; group 2). The outcome of these two groups of patients was retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients [85%] survived until the end of follow-up of 29 +/- 15 (group 1) and 33 +/- 21 (group 2) months (P = ns), respectively. Thirteen patients died: six in group 1 and seven in group 2 (P = ns). Fourteen patients experienced perioperative complications (group 1: six; group 2: eight; P = ns). ICD system-related complications occurred in 22 patients (group 1: seven; group two: 15; P = ns). The event-free cumulative survival of patients with additional and replaced HV-P/S lead for postoperative events (including death) after 1, 2, and 3 years was 82%, 70%, 70%, and 86%, 81%, 66%, respectively (P = 0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of an additional HV-P/S lead or replacement of the HV-P/S lead in case of HV-P/S lead failure is statistically not different concerning mortality and morbidity. There are no predictors for further lead defects. Implantation of an additional HV-P/S lead should not be recommended in young patients or patients with greater likelihood of living many years. Predictors for death were an age over 70 years and renal insufficiency.

Laser Lead Extraction: Predictors of Success and Complications

BACKGROUND

Paralleling the rise in pacemaker and defibrillator implantations, lead extraction procedures are increasingly required. Concerns regarding failure and complications remain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 200 lead extraction procedures were performed at the Montreal Heart Institute between September 2000 and August 2005. In 23 patients, all leads were removed by traction with a locking stylet. A total of 270 leads were extracted using a laser sheath system (Spectranectics, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) in 177 procedures involving 175 patients (74% male), age 62+/-16 years. Procedural indications were: infection 88 (50%), dysfunction 54 (30%), upgrade 21 (12%), and other 14 (8%). Overall, 241 leads (89%) were successfully extracted, 7 (3%) were partially extracted (< or = 4 cm retained), and 22 (8%) were non-extractable. In multivariate analyses, predictors of failed extraction were longer time from implant (OR 1.16 per year, P=0.0001) and history of hypertension (OR 5.2, P=0.0023). Acute complications occurred in 14 of 177 procedures (7.9%): 8 (4.5%) minor and 6 (3.4%) major, with one death. In multivariate analyses, the only predictor of acute complications was laser lead extraction from both right and left sides during the same procedure (OR 9.4, P = 0.0119). In addition, 3 of 10 patients with failed or partially extracted infected systems eventually required open chest explantation because of endocarditis.

CONCLUSION

Most leads not amenable to manual traction may be successfully extracted by a percutaneous laser sheath system. While most complications are minor, major complications including death may occur. Older leads are at higher risk for failed extraction. Endocarditis may ensue if infected leads are incompletely removed.

Laser Assistance for Extraction of Chronically Implanted Endocardial Leads: Infectious versus Noninfectious Indications

BACKGROUND

Powered sheaths, including Excimer laser sheaths, were introduced for the removal of transvenous pacing and defibrillator leads. The purpose of this study was to develop an algorithm to better predict which patients are likely to benefit from these devices.

METHODS

We reviewed 283 consecutive patients in whom a total of 500 leads (302 pacing and 198 defibrillator leads) were extracted over a 5-year period at our operative facilities. Laser assist was utilized whenever moderate traction failed.

RESULTS

In 128 patients, 203 leads were removed for noninfectious indication. In 155 patients, 297 leads for infectious indications, including sepsis 22% (111), pocket infection 23% (115), and erosion 14% (71). Laser assistance was required for 6%+/- 5% (+/- 95% confidence interval) of septic leads, 51%+/- 7% of leads associated with erosion or pocket infection and 60%+/- 7% of noninfected leads (P = 0.001). Laser assistance was necessary more often for leads implanted >12 months (53%+/- 5%) than 12 months or less (6%+/- 5%) (P = 0.001) and for ventricular (52%+/- 6%) compared to atrial (35%+/- 7%) leads (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronically implanted leads (>12 months), especially noninfected leads and leads associated with erosion or pocket infection, should be referred for extraction with powered sheaths to ensure successful removal. However, leads that are associated with systemic sepsis can generally be removed without powered sheaths.

Pathophysiology and Treatment of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

All patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) should have five aspects of care addressed. An attempt should be made to detect the presence or absence of risk factors for sudden arrhythmic death. If the patient appears to be at high risk, discussion of the benefits and risks of ICD are indicated, and many such patients will be implanted. Symptoms are appraised and treated. Bacterial endocarditis prophylaxis is recommended. Patients are advised to avoid athletic competition and extremes of physical exertion. First degree family members should be screened with echocardiography and ECG.

Pulmonary Arterial Embolization of Pacemaker Lead Electrode Tip

Complications with extraction of abundant endovascular systems increase with time since implantation. As the number of implanted devices increases, successful management of complications needs to be disseminated. We present a 46-year-old woman with endovascular leads placed 15 years previously requiring extraction. Using laser-assistance the leads were removed, although the passive lead tips were unable to be extracted, and were retained in the superior vena cava. One lead tip embolized to the distal pulmonary bed within 24 hours of her operative procedure. Computed tomography and pulmonary arteriography suggested a near immediate thrombogenic process. A multidisciplinary approach was utilized to identify management strategies that allowed for a satisfactory patient outcome.

Effectiveness of Excimer Laser-Assisted Pacing and ICD Lead Extraction in Children and Young Adults

BACKGROUND

High capture thresholds, decreased electrical sensing, and lead fractures continue to be a problem in children undergoing transvenous pacing. The clinician must therefore decide at the time of pacing system revision to either abandon chronically implanted transvenous pacing leads or extract them.

METHODS

We report our experience using an excimer laser-assisted (LA) strategy for removing chronically implanted pacing (36) and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) (7) leads in children and young adults. The study population consisted of 25 patients, in whom 29 procedures were performed. The patients ranged in age from 8.4 to 39.9 years, median age was 13.9 years, at the time of the extraction procedure. In all procedures, a Spectranectics locking stylet and excimer laser sheath were used to assist in lead extraction.

RESULTS

Lead removal was complete for 39 (91%) leads, and partial for four leads. In two patients, the pacing lead tip was retained and in two, the ring electrode from a bipolar pacing lead was left in situ. All ICD leads were removed completely. Two major complications occurred--cardiac perforation and tamponade (1), and thrombosis of the left subclavian/innominate vein (1). LA extraction facilitated the implantation of new pacing or ICD leads in three patients with obstructed venous access.

CONCLUSIONS

Removal of pacing and ICD leads using an excimer LA technique was highly successful. Lead removal was complete in 91%. The most common indication for lead removal in our study was lead fracture. Complications were few, but may be significant.

Incidence of Complications in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter/Defibrillator Who Receive Additional Transvenous Pace/Sense Leads

BACKGROUND

Implantation of an additional pace/sense (P/S) lead is commonly used in patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) to overcome P/S defects of integrated defibrillation leads (HV-P/S leads). No information is available about the clinical outcome and the incidence of complications in these patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed in 151 patients (125 male, age 54.9 +/- 13.6 years, LVEF 48.1 +/- 17.8%, CAD in 86 [57%], DCM in 24 [16%], ARVCM in 11 [7%]) who received an additional P/S lead between 1990 and 2002 (54 patients with abdominal and 97 patients with pectoral ICD system). Statistical analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

The average follow-up (FU) after implantation of the additional P/S lead was 43 +/- 27 months. In total 117 patients [77.5%] remain implanted; 22 patients died due to cardiac-related reasons. After a FU of 23 +/- 23 months, 43 patients [28.5%] experienced lead-related problems after implantation of the additional P/S lead: oversensing in 23 [53.5%], insulation defect in 3 [7.0%], fracture in 1 [2.3%], system infection in 4 [9.3%], and defect of the HV-P/S lead in 6 [14.0%] patients. The event-free cumulative survival of the additional P/S lead after 1, 2, and 5 years was 87.0%, 79.8%, and 59.4%, respectively (for pectoral leads: 89.6%, 82.0%, and 60.0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of an additional P/S lead in case of failure of an HV-P/S lead is safe. However, it is associated with a substantial rate of complications during FU. Therefore, extraction of damaged defibrillation leads instead of implantation of P/S leads should be favored.

The growing mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are lifesaving devices. Over 100,000 patients received ICDs in 2004 at a cost of $2 billion for the pulse generators alone. Because of expanded indications and coverage by Medicare, the number of ICD implantations and replacements is expected to increase dramatically during the next decade. The average ICD patient at our institution now lives nearly 10 years after the procedure. However, the service life of pulse generators has decreased from 4.7 +/- 1 year for single-chamber units to 4.0 +/- 1 year for dual-chamber devices. This mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of ICDs poses a significant clinical and economic burden that must be addressed. One near-term solution is for manufacturers to provide devices with larger batteries so that most patients can have an ICD pulse generator that lasts a lifetime. For the long-term, more robust or renewable energy sources are needed.

[Pacemaker and intra cardiac defibrillator lead extraction techniques]

Percutaneous Pace-maker and ICD lead extraction techniques has been developped: by superior approach using locking stylet and more and more efficient outher sheats (laser assisted); and also by femoral approach using double lasso catheters (Needle's eye snare). Indication range has increased and is not only reserved for lead infection. Because of scar tissue holding the lead and also the impact of the distal tip, those techniques are not simples. Extraction recommandations do advise those procedures to be performed by expert physicians, in cardiac surgery centers, where complications can be managed and reduced. The use of laser assisted outher sheats will make lead extraction easier and will reduce complication rate. Alternative procedure in case of failure with superior approach remain femoral approach. All those techniques give a success rate of about 98 % for percutaneous lead extraction in an expert center.

Laser Lead Extraction: Is There a Learning Curve?

Laser extraction of device leads offers an attractive alternative to countertraction and electrosurgical dissection sheath, potentially increasing efficacy and reducing complications. Wider adoption of this technology depends on relative ease of use. We report the experience of a new center to define the "learning curve." We performed 76 laser lead extractions in 75 patients (age 63 +/- 17 years, 59 male) from July 2001 to January 2004. Two experienced device implanters who were novice extractors underwent a 2-day site visit to a high volume extraction center for training. Lead extractions were performed in the operating room with immediate surgical backup. The indication for extraction was infection in 39 (systemic in 15), erosion or pain in 11, and lead related or debulking in 25. Complete removal was achieved in 139 of 145 leads (14 ICD, 131 pacemaker). Partial removal (<4 cm retained) was achieved in five leads (4%), and one lead could not be extracted. Complete success was 95% in the first third of patients, 94% in the second third, and 100% in the latter third. Fluoroscopy time fell from 19 +/- 22 minute in the first third of patients to 11 +/- 8 minute in the second third to 8 +/- 4 minute in the latter third (ANOVA P = 0.02). No major complications occurred. Local bleeding required minor left subclavian vein repair in two individuals. Symptomatic venous thrombosis occurred in 3 of the first 11 cases 1-21 days after extraction, but did not occur in the next 64 consecutive patients who received a 1-month anticoagulation regimen (27% vs 0%, P < 0.001). One patient developed venous thrombosis 3 weeks following cessation of warfarin therapy. Practice guidelines reasonably recommend appropriate training prior to independent performance of lead extraction. The current study suggests that experienced device implanters with appropriate operative backup taking a limited, but intensive training program can be safe and effective at lead extraction in a short time, in part a reflection of the improved technology.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children

The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children presents several unique challenges for the pediatric cardiologist. Size considerations and hardware limitations are important in the current generation of devices that are not designed with children in mind. Defibrillator devices are used to prolong life, which may have significant implications for leads and electrodes that are affixed to the heart in a child who has continued growth potential. A greater number of children with congenital heart defects are surviving into adulthood, many of whom have a risk of late sudden death following repair. These patients may also have unique anatomic considerations that may affect device placement. This article will address some of the issues faced when considering the use of implantable-defibrillator therapy in the pediatric population.

Pacemaker and defibrillator lead extraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Continued growth in the elderly population and expanding indications have resulted in a progressive increase in the number of implants of pacemakers and defibrillators. Concomitant with these expanding numbers, more leads require removal, due especially to mechanical dysfunction, the need to upgrade to more complex devices, or local or systemic infection. Further, leads have become more complex, particularly for defibrillator systems, resulting in the development of powered extraction sheaths to expedite their removal. For these reasons, it is important to understand the expanding indications, procedural aspects, and limitations of arrhythmia device extraction.

RECENT FINDINGS

Expanded indications for lead extraction include upgrade to more complex systems, particularly pacemaker to defibrillator or biventricular device, extraction through occluded vasculature to produce a conduit for reimplantation, more frequent removal due to vascular overload with multiple leads, and a finite frequency of infection, occurring particularly with device replacement or revision. Powered sheaths now include laser and electrocautery systems, both improving the ease of lead explantation.

SUMMARY

Complication rates remain low but constant with extraction of larger numbers of leads using new technologies. Expansion of the use of biventricular systems, with implantation of coronary sinus electrodes, will continue to challenge lead extraction in terms of technology and safety. Design of leads that are easier to remove remains of paramount importance.