Venous occlusion of the access vein in patients referred for lead extraction: influence of patient and lead characteristics

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

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

Multilevel Venous Obstruction in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Background and Objectives: The nature of multilevel lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (MLVSO) and its influence on transvenous lead extraction (TLE) as well as long-term survival remains poorly understood. Materials and Methods: A total of 3002 venograms obtained before a TLE were analyzed to identify the risk factors for MLVSO, as well as the procedure effectiveness and long-term survival. Results: An older patient age at the first system implantation (OR = 1.015; p < 0.001), the number of leads in the heart (OR = 1.556; p < 0.001), the placement of the coronary sinus (CS) lead (OR = 1.270; p = 0.027), leads on both sides of the chest (OR = 7.203; p < 0.001), and a previous device upgrade or downgrade with lead abandonment (OR = 2.298; p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of MLVSO. Conclusions: The presence of MLVSO predisposes patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) to the development of infectious complications. Patients with multiple narrowed veins are likely to undergo longer and more complex procedures with complications, and the rates of clinical and procedural success are lower in this group. Long-term survival after a TLE is similar in patients with MLVSO and those without venous obstruction. MLVSO probably better depicts the severity of global venous obstruction than the degree of vein narrowing at only one point.

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.

Transvenous Lead Extraction: Work in Progress

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are the cornerstone of cardiac rhythm management, with a significant number of implantations annually. A rising prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices coupled with widening indications for device removal has fuelled a demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). With advancement of tools and techniques, the safety and efficacy profile of TLE has significantly improved since its inception. Despite these advances, TLE continues to carry risk of significant complications, including a superior vena cava injury and mortality. However, innovative approaches to lead extraction, including the use of the jugular and femoral accesses, offers potential for further gains in safety and efficacy. In this review, the indications and risks of TLE are discussed while examining the evolution of this procedure from simple traction to advanced methodologies, which have contributed to a significant improvement in safety and efficacy.

Practical Approaches to Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures-Clinical Case Series

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is regarded as the first-line strategy for the management of complications associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), when lead removal is mandatory. The decision to perform a lead extraction should take into consideration not only the strength of the clinical indication for the procedure but also many other factors such as risks versus benefits, extractor and team experience, and even patient preference. TLE is a procedure with a possible high risk of complications. In this paper, we present three clinical cases of patients who presented different indications of TLE and explain how the procedures were successfully performed. In the first clinical case, TLE was necessary because of device extravasation and suspicion of CIED pocket infection. In the second clinical case, TLE was necessary because occlusion of the left subclavian vein was found when an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy was performed. In the last clinical case, TLE was necessary in order to remove magnetic resonance (MR) non-conditional leads, so the patient could undergo an MRI examination for the management of a brain tumor.

Occluded vein as a predictor for complications in non-infectious transvenous lead extraction

Background

The use of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) is steadily increasing, and complications include venous occlusion and fractured leads. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) can facilitate the re-implantation of new leads.

Aims

This study aims to explore predictors and complications of non-infectious TLE.

Methods

This study involves a retrospective analysis and comparison of characteristics, complications, and outcomes of patients with and without occluded veins (OVs) undergoing TLE at our center.

Results

In total, eighty-eight patients underwent TLE for non-infectious reasons. Indications for TLE were lead malfunction (62; 70.5%) and need for CIED upgrade (22; 25%). Fourteen patients referred due to lead malfunction had an OV observed during venography. The OV group (36 patients) were significantly older (65.7 ± 14.1 vs. 53.8 ± 15.9, p = 0.001) and had more comorbidities. Ejection fraction (EF) was significantly lower for the OV group (27.5 vs. 57.5%, p = 0.001) and had a longer lead dwelling time (3,226 ± 2,324 vs. 2,191 ± 1,355 days, p = 0.012). Major complications were exclusive for the OV group (5.5% vs. none, p = 0.17), and most minor complications occurred in the OV group as well (33.3 vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001). Laser sheath and mechanical tools for TLE were frequently used for OV as compared to the non-occluded group (94.4 vs. 73.5%, respectively, p = 0.012). Procedure success was higher in the non-occluded group compared to the OV group (98 vs. 83.3%, respectively, p = 0.047). Despite these results, periprocedural mortality was similar between groups.

Conclusion

Among the TLE for non-infectious reasons, vein occlusion appears as a major predictor of complex TLE tool use, complications, and procedural success. Venography should be considered prior to non-infectious TLE to identify high-risk patients.

Severity and Extent of Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in More Than 3000 Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background

Lead-related venous stenosis/obstruction (LRVSO) may be a major challenge in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) when device upgrade, insertion of central lines, or creation of an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis is indicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent and severity of LRVSO.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3002 venograms from patients awaiting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to assess the occurrence, severity, and extent of LRVSO.

Results

Mild LRVSO occurred in 19.9%, moderate in 20.7%, severe in 19.9% and total venous occlusion in 22.5% of the patients. Moderate/severe stenosis or total occlusion of the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins was found in 38.2% and 22.5% of the patients, respectively. LRSVO was not detected in 16.9% of the patients. Moderate and severe superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction and total SVC occlusion were rare (0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Lead insertion on the left side of the chest contributed to an increased risk of LRVSO compared to right-sided implantation. Major thoracic veins on the opposite side may be narrowed in varying degrees.

Conclusion

A total of 60% of the patients with pacemaker or high-voltage leads have an advanced form of LRVSO. Any attempt to insert new pacing leads, central lines, venous ports, or catheters for hemodialysis, or to create dialysis fistula on the same side as the existing lead should be preceded by venography. Furthermore, venography may provide useful information, if it is planned to implant the lead or the catheter on the opposite side of the chest.

The Role of Preoperative Venography in Predicting the Difficulty of a Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedure

INTRODUCTION

We hypothesized that an accurate assessment of preoperative venography could be useful in predicting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) difficulty.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A dedicated preoperative venogram was performed in consecutive patients with cardiac implantable electronic device who underwent TLE. The level of stenosis was classified as without significant stenosis, moderate, severe, and occlusion. The presence of extensive lead-venous wall adherence (≥50 mm) was also assessed. A total of 105 patients (median age 71 years; 72% male) with a median of 2(1-2) leads to extract were enrolled. Preoperative venography showed moderate to severe stenosis in 31(30%), complete occlusion in 15(14%), and extensive lead-venous wall adherence in 50 (48%) patients. Complete TLE success was achieved in 103(98%) patients. Fifty-five (52%) were advanced extractions as they required a power mechanical and/or laser sheath. They were more prevalent in the group with extensive lead-venous wall adherence (72% vs. 34%, p<0.001), while no differences were found between patients with and without venous occlusion. In multivariate analysis, the presence of adherence was a predictor of advanced extraction (odds ratio 2.89[1.14-7.32], p=0.025). The fluoroscopy time was also significantly longer (14.0[8.2-18.7] vs. 5.1[2.1-10.0] min, p<0.001). The rate of complications did not differ based on the presence of venous lesions.

CONCLUSION

Although procedural success and complication rates were similar, patients with extensive lead-venous wall adherence required a longer fluoroscopy time and were 3 times more likely to need advanced extraction tools. Conversely, the presence of total venous occlusion had no impact on the procedure complexity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

New Insights in Central Venous Disorders. The Role of Transvenous Lead Extractions

Over the last decades, the implementation of new technology in cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators as well as the increasing life expectancy have been associated with a higher incidence of transvenous lead complications over time. Variable degrees of venous stenosis at the level of the subclavian vein, the innominate trunk and the superior vena cava are reported in up to 50% of implanted patients. Importantly, the number of implanted leads seems to be the main risk factor for such complications. Extraction of abandoned or dysfunctional leads is a potential solution to overcome venous stenosis in case of device upgrades requiring additional leads, but also, in addition to venous angioplasty and stenting, to reduce symptoms related to the venous stenosis itself, i.e., the superior vena cava syndrome. This review explores the role of transvenous lead extraction procedures as therapeutical option in case of central venous disorders related to transvenous cardiac leads. We also describe the different extraction techniques available and other clinical indications for lead extractions such as lead infections. Finally, we discuss the alternative therapeutic options for cardiac stimulation or defibrillation in case of chronic venous occlusions that preclude the implant of conventional transvenous cardiac devices.

Risk Factors for Lead-Related Venous Obstruction: A Study of 2909 Candidates for Lead Extraction

Background: our knowledge of lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (LRVSO) remains limited and there is still controversy regarding the risk factors for LRVSO. Venography is mandatory before transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: we performed a retrospective analysis of venograms in 2909 patients (39.43% females, average age 66.90 years) who underwent TLE between 2008 and 2021 at high-volume centers. Results: the severity of LRVSO was likely to be dependent on the number of leads in the system (OR = 1.345; p = 0.003), the number of abandoned leads (OR = 1.965; p < 0.001), the presence of coronary sinus leads (OR = 1.184; p = 0.056), male gender (OR = 1.349; p = 0.003) and patient age at first CIED implantation (OR = 1.008; p = 0.021). The presence of permanent atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.666; p < 0.001) and right ventricular diastolic diameter (OR = 0.978; p = 0.006) showed an inverse correlation with the degree of LRVSO. The combined three-model multivariate analysis provided better prediction of LRSVO using the above-mentioned factors than the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Conclusions: the severity of LRVSO is probably dependent on the mechanical impact of the implanted/abandoned leads on the vein wall, therefore the study has demonstrated the central role of system-/procedure-related risk factors. The thrombotic mechanism may be less important, especially long after implantation, and for this reason the combined prediction model for LRVSO in this study was more effective than the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

The Influence of Lead-Related Venous Obstruction on the Complexity and Outcomes of Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background: Little is known about lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (LRVSO), and the influence of LRVSO on the complexity and outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is debated in the literature. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of venograms from 2909 patients who underwent TLE between 2008 and 2021 at a high-volume center. Results: Advanced LRVSO was more common in elderly men with a high Charlson comorbidity index. Procedure duration, extraction of superfluous leads, occurrence of any technical difficulty, lead-to-lead binding, fracture of the lead being extracted, need to use alternative approach and lasso catheters or metal sheaths were found to be associated with LRVSO. The presence of LRVSO had no impact on the number of major complications including TLE-related tricuspid valve damage. The achievement of complete procedural or clinical success did not depend on the presence of LRVSO. Long-term mortality, in contrast to periprocedural and short-term mortality, was significantly worse in the groups with LRSVO. Conclusions: LRVSO can be considered as an additional TLE-related risk factor. The effect of LRVSO on major complications including periprocedural mortality and on short-term mortality has not been established. However, LRVSO has been associated with poor long-term survival.

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.

Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators; A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Obstruction of the access vein following cardiac pacemaker and defibrillator implantation is a common complication. However, the exact incidence and contributing risk factors are unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence and analyze the contribution of each risk factor.

METHODS

57 consecutive patients candidate for their first transvenous pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), or cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation were enrolled. After implantation, venography of the ipsilateral peripheral arm was performed. Patients underwent their second venography after the follow-up period of 3 to 6 months.

RESULTS

42 patients (13 females, mean age 59.71 ± 12.33) completed the study. The followup venography showed significant venous obstruction (more than 50%) in 9 (21%) patients, but in none of the individuals, venography revealed total occlusion of the veins. Patients with obstruction had more leads in their veins (2.56 ± 0.53 vs 1.58 ± 0.71, P = 0.001). Venous obstruction was significantly more prevalent in patients with implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy device compared with an ICD or pacemaker (p = 0. 01). Age, gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease and antiplatelet consumption did not reveal any other contribution to the risk of thrombosis. In multivariate analysis, total lead number was a positive predictor for venous occlusion (P = 0.015, OR:19.2, and CI: 1.7-207.1).

CONCLUSION

Venous obstruction is relatively frequent after pacemaker or ICD implantation. This study also shows that pacemaker and ICD leads have a similar risk for lead-related venous obstruction. However, patients with multiple leads are associated with an increased risk.

Predictors of venous stenosis or occlusion following first transvenous cardiac device implantation: Prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Venous stenosis or occlusion related to an intracardiac device is a well-known complication of that procedure. There are numerous studies tried to determine predictors of venous stenosis or occlusion; however, most of them investigate the venous system prior to device upgrade, generator replacement, or transvenous lead extraction. Therefore, we aimed to assess the prevalence and determine the predictors of venous stenosis or occlusion following first transevnous cardiac device implantation.

METHODS

Observational, prospective study included 71 consecutive patients admitted for first transvenous cardiac device implantation. All patients were followed up for 6 months after operation.

RESULTS

Implanted device systems comprised cardioverter defibrillator (n = 26), single-chamber or dual-chamber pacemakers (n = 34), and biventricular pacemakers (n = 11); 88.5% of implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads were single-coils and 11.5% were dual-coils. The incidence of venous stenosis or occlusion within 6-month follow-up was 21.1%. Multivariate logistic regression showed that only diabetes or prediabetes (p = 0.033, odds ratio: 0.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.87), prolonged procedure time (p = 0.046, odds ratio: 4.54, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-20.12), and perioperative complications (p = 0.021, odds ratio: 7.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-36.85) were predictors of venous stenosis or occlusion.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged implantation time (>60 min) and perioperative complications are associated with an increased risk of venous stenosis or occlusion, whereas diabetes and prediabetes significantly reduce the risk of venous stenosis or occlusion.

Venous System Interventions for Device Implantation

Subclavian obstruction is common after lead implantation and the need to add or replace a lead is increasing. Subclavian venoplasty (SV) is a safe and effective option for venous occlusion. Peripheral venography overestimates the severity of the obstruction. A wire can usually be advanced into the central circulation for SV. Compared with dilators, SV improves the quality of venous access, providing unrestricted catheter manipulation for His bundle pacing and left ventricular lead implantation. SV preserves venous access and reduces lead burden. SV can easily be added to the implanting physicians lead management options.

Successful implantation of a Micra leadless pacemaker via collateral femoral vein and inferior vena cava filter

This case details the successful implementation of a leadless pacemaker device in a patient with multiple venous occlusions and an IVC filter. As the incidence of IVC filters increases in patients with dysrhythmias, further investigations are required to determine the risk and safety of leadless pacemaker placement in this population.

Neointimal fibrotic lead encapsulation - Clinical challenges and demands for implantable cardiac electronic devices

Every tenth patient with a cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted is expected to have at least one lead problem in his lifetime. However, transvenous leads are often difficult to remove due to thrombotic obstruction or extensive neointimal fibrotic ingrowth. Despite its clinical significance, knowledge on lead-induced vascular fibrosis and neointimal lead encapsulation is sparse. Although leadless pacemakers are already available, their clinical operating range is limited. Therefore, lead/tissue interactions must be further improved in order to improve lead removals in particular. The published data on the coherences and issues related to lead associated vascular fibrosis and neointimal lead encapsulation are reviewed and discussed in this paper.

Venous stenosis and occlusion in the presence of endocardial leads in patients referred for transvenous lead extraction

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of venous stenosis and occlusion (VSO) in patients referred for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) with regard to the indications for this treatment and to analyse the influence of VSO on efficacy, complications and technical challenges of TLE procedures. Methods The material consists of 133 consecutive TLE procedure records. The contrast venography examination of the ipsilateral access vein was performed prior to the operation. The whole study population was divided into two subgroups, based on the presence (subgroup I) or absence (subgroup II) of VSO. Results Phlebography was performed in 133 patients with age ranging from 25.7 to 86.1 years, 44 female (33.1%). The VSO was confirmed in 48 (36.1%) patients - subgroup I. Most of the patients were referred to TLE due to non-infectious reasons (100 pts-75.2%). The absence of VSO was observed substantially more frequently in patients with diabetes (P = 0.02). Procedural success rate reached 93.3% in subgroup I and 98.8% in subgroup II (P = 0.1). There was no significant difference in the use of advanced tools and alternative access sites. Conclusion The presence of VSO can be expected in one third of patients referred for lead extraction. There is no association between indication for TLE (infected or noninfected lead extraction) and the incidence of VSO. Diabetes proved to have a protective effect on venous patency in the previously mentioned group. VSO does not influence the effectiveness, safety, and the use of additional tools during TLE procedures.

Ten-Year Clinical Experience with the Lumenless, Catheter-Delivered, 4.1-Fr Diameter Pacing Lead in Patients with and without Congenital Heart

BACKGROUND

Patients with congenital heart defects (CHD) often present more challenges to pacing therapy due to anatomy than those without CHD. The lumenless, 4.1Fr diameter M3830 pacing lead (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), approved for use in 2005, has, to date, reported to have excellent short-term (<6 years) lead performance. Unfortunately, very long-term performance is unknown, especially among CHD patients and with implants at alternate pacing (AP) sites. This study reports a 10-year clinical experience with the M3830 lead.

METHODS

Records of patients who received the M3830 lead were reviewed: patient demographics, implant techniques and locations, sensing and pacing characteristics, impedances (Imp), and any complications at implant and follow-up.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2015, 141 patients (ages 2-50, mean 20.1 years, 57% males) received 212 leads: atrial 115; ventricle 97. CHD was present in 62% of patients. Leads were inserted at AP sites in 96% of patients. Postimplant follow-up was from 3 months to 10 years (mean 56.3 months). Comparative implant versus follow-up values (mean ± standard deviation) were available on 196 leads (92.5%), showing persistently low (<1 v @ 0.4-0.5 ms) pacing thresholds (P = 0.57). Sensing was also comparable (atrial leads, P = 0.41; ventricular leads, P = 0.9). Impedances differed (P < 0.05) but remained within the normal range. Two A leads became dislodged and one was repositioned while two other leads (1 A, 1 V) were extracted. There are no differences observed in the pacing characteristics between the CHD and non-CHD groups on follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4.1Fr lumenless pacing lead shows ease of implant regardless of CHD or AP site, excellent very long-term (10 years) stability, and performance indices with a very low rate of complications.

The utility of a CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting the presence of significant stenosis and occlusion of veins with indwelling endocardial leads

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no studies in which a CHA2DS2-VASc score has been used to predict the risk of venous stenosis and occlusion (VSO) in patients after the implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED).

METHODS

The material consists of the records of 223 consecutive patients qualified for transvenous lead extraction, generator change and system revisions or upgrades in whom we assessed the utility of a CHA2DS2-VASc score in the prediction of VSO. The CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated retrospectively based on the clinical data. The whole study population was divided into two groups, based on the presence (group I) or absence (group II) of VSO. Using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, we identified the optimal cut-off point for the CHA2DS2-VASc score that allowed the prediction of the absence of VSO.

RESULTS

The venography was performed in 223 consecutive patients aged on average 68.2years (25.7-95.3), 77 females (34.5%). The presence of VSO was detected in 79 (35.4%) patients aged 68.3±14.1years, 30 female (40%) patients-group I. The level of the cut-off point for the CHA2DS2-VASc score that allowed the prediction of the absence of VSO was 3.0.

CONCLUSION

In the whole population the incidence of VSO amounted to 35.4%. The result of the CHA2DS2-VASc score was a destimulant of VSO occurrence and was characterized by moderate sensitivity (73.4%) and specificity (42.4%) in predicting the absence of VSO. The most significant factor, which prevented VSO development was diabetes.

Prevalence and predictor factors of severe venous obstruction after cardiovascular electronic device implantation

AIMS

Despite not being uncommon, limited evidence exists about predisposing factors for venous obstruction in patients with implantable electronic devices. We aimed to assess the prevalence of severe venous obstruction in patients with intravenous devices and identify predictor factors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 184 patients underwent venography to detect venous obstruction associated with the inserted lead. Vessel obstruction was graded as venous occlusion (complete flow interruption), severe obstruction (narrowing >90%), or mild-moderate obstruction (narrowing 50-90%). Severe venous obstruction/occlusion prevalence was 11.4% (n = 21) and was always asymptomatic. Collateral circulation was found in 80.9% of patients with severe obstruction/occlusion. Twelve patients (6.5%) had 3 leads. The rates of patients with secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death as indication for implantable devices and of those of patients with 3 leads were significantly greater in the group with severe obstruction/occlusion than in the non-severe obstruction/occlusion group (respectively, P = 0.004 and P = 0.03). Logistic analysis adjusted for venous thromboembolic risk factors confirmed that secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death as indication for implantable devices [odds ratio (OR), 7.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-35.3; P = 0.017] and the presence of 3 leads (OR, 8.5; 95% CI: 1.75-41.35; P = 0.008) were predictors of severe obstruction/occlusion.

CONCLUSION

In patients with implantable devices, severe venous obstruction prevalence is not negligible and the lack of symptoms does not exclude it. The presence of three leads and sudden cardiac death as indication for implantable devices seem to be associated with the presence of severe venous obstruction/occlusion.

Why the Authors Use Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with Defibrillators

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves left ventricular function, especially in patients with left bundle branch block or those receiving chronic right ventricular pacing. CRT is typically accomplished by placing a right ventricular endocardial pacing lead and a left ventricular pacing lead via the coronary sinus to a coronary vein overlying the lateral or posterolateral left ventricle. CRT can be combined with an implantable defibrillator or with a pacemaker. Limited data are available to compare these two versions of CRT head to head. This review summarizes the relevant trials and meta-analyses regarding these two forms of CRT.

Venous Stenosis After Transvenous Lead Placement: A Study of Outcomes and Risk Factors in 212 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

Venous stenosis is a common complication of transvenous lead implantation, but the risk factors for venous stenosis have not been well defined to date. This study was designed to evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for venous stenosis in a large consecutive cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 212 consecutive patients (136 male, 76 female; mean age 69 years) with existing pacing or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems presented for generator replacement, lead revision, or device upgrade with a mean time since implantation of 6.2 years. Venograms were performed and percentage of stenosis was determined. Variables studied included age, sex, number of leads, lead diameter, implant duration, insulation material, side of implant, and anticoagulant use. Overall, 56 of 212 patients had total occlusion of the subclavian or innominate vein (26%). There was a significant association between the number of leads implanted and percentage of venous stenosis (P=0.012). Lead diameter, as an independent variable, was not a risk factor; however, greater sum of the lead diameters implanted was a predictor of subsequent venous stenosis (P=0.009). Multiple lead implant procedures may be associated with venous stenosis (P=0.057). No other variables approached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant association exists between venous stenosis and the number of implanted leads and also the sum of the lead diameters. When combined with multiple implant procedures, the incidence of venous stenosis is increased.

Pulmonary embolism in patients with transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device leads

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly associated with transvenous lead-related thrombi that can cause pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively evaluated all patients with transvenous CIED leads implanted at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 1 January 2000, and 25 October 2010. Pulmonary embolism outcomes during follow-up were screened using diagnosis codes and confirmed with imaging study reports. Of 5646 CIED patients (age 67.3 ± 16.3 years, 64% men, mean follow-up 4.69 years) 88 developed PE (1.6%), incidence 3.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.68-4.07] per 1000 person-years [men: 3.04 (95% CI 2.29-3.96) per 1000 person-years; women: 3.81 (95% CI 2.72-5.20) per 1000 person-years]. Other than transvenous CIED lead(s), 84% had another established risk factor for PE such as deep vein thrombosis (28%), recent surgery (27%), malignancy (25%), or prior history of venous thromboembolism (15%). At the time of PE, 22% had been hospitalized for ≥ 48 h, and 59% had been hospitalized in the preceding 30 days. Pulmonary embolism occurred in 22% despite being on systemic anticoagulation therapy. Out of 88 patients with PE, 45 subsequently died, mortality rate 93 (95% CI 67-123) per 1000 person-years (hazard ratio 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Though lead-related thrombus is commonly seen in patients with transvenous CIED leads, clinical PE occurs with a low incidence. It is possible that embolism of lead thrombus is uncommon or emboli are too small to cause consequential pulmonary infarction.

Prevalence of venous occlusion in patients referred for lead extraction: implications for tool selection

AIMS

Data concerning the incidence of venous obstruction in patients referred for lead extraction is limited. Thus, we aimed to assess the incidence of venous obstruction in patients referred for lead extraction and the implications for tool selection.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Contrast venography of the access vein was obtained in 202 patients (147 men; mean age, 62.4 ± 14.5 years) scheduled for lead extraction. The indication for lead extraction included infection (n = 145, 72%) and other causes (n = 57, 28%). Two patients with device infection had superior vena caval occlusion. Access vein occlusion occurred in 6 (11%) patients without infection vs. 46 (32%) patients with infection [P = 0.002; odds ratio (OR) 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58-9.87]. No significant differences between occluded and non-occluded patients were seen for age, sex, device type, number of leads, time from implant of the initial lead, or anticoagulation therapy (all P>0.05). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy exposure time were significantly lower in the open group than in the occluded group (P < 0.05). Patients with venous occlusion required more advanced tools for lead extraction, such as dilator sheaths, evolution sheaths, and needle's eye snares (P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Both systemic and local infections are associated with increased risk of access vein occlusion. We found no support for the hypothesis that venous occlusion increases with the number of leads present. Lead extraction was more difficult in patients with venous occlusion, requiring advanced tools and more time.

Implanted endocardial lead characteristics and risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack

INTRODUCTION

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been recently implicated as a strong predictor of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with implanted pacemaker or defibrillation leads. Leads in the right heart can form thrombi that embolize to the pulmonary circulation and raise pulmonary pressure. This increases right-to-left shunting through PFO or intrapulmonary shunts and can result in paradoxical embolism. We sought to determine whether certain lead characteristics confer a higher thrombogenic risk resulting in stroke/TIAs in patients either with or without a PFO.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 5,646 patients (mean age 67.3 ± 16.3 years, 64 % male) who had endocardial device leads implanted in 2000-2010. We performed univariate and multivariate-adjusted proportional hazards models to determine association of lead characteristics with stroke/TIA during follow-up.

RESULTS

On univariate analysis, passively fixated tined leads were associated with more stroke/TIAs (HR 1.77, 95 % CI 1.27, 2.47; p<0.001), whereas presence of defibrillation coil was associated with fewer stroke/TIAs (HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.42-0.84; p=0.003). Number of leads per patient, presence of atrial lead, maximum lead size, tip shape, and type of insulating material were not associated with stoke/TIA. On multivariate analyses adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis of PFO, and prior history of stroke/TIA, the presence of tined leads was associated with stroke/TIA (HR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.00-1.97; p=0.049). Defibrillation coils were no longer associated with lower stroke/TIA on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Most physical characteristics of contemporary leads do not impact rate of stroke/TIA among patients receiving implantable devices. The presence of a PFO is a major risk factor for stroke/TIA in patients with endovascular leads.

Regaining venous access for implantation of a new lead

Introduction

Venous occlusion is a relatively common complication of endocardial lead implantation. It may cause a critical problem when implantation of a new lead is needed. Traditional methods result in leaving abandoned leads. The optimal approach seems to be the extraction of the damaged or abandoned lead, regaining venous access and implantation of a new lead.

Aim

To assess the efficacy and safety of new lead implantation by the method of lead extraction.

Material and methods

All transvenous lead extraction procedures (203 patients) between 1 August 2008 and 15 October 2012 were assessed. The analysis included cases with leads implanted for at least 6 months prior to extraction.

Results

Regaining venous access was the main indication for lead extraction in 5 patients (4.9%). The reason for new lead implantation was lead damage (n = 7) and system up-grade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (n = 3). In total, 23 leads were extracted (9 defibrillation leads, 12 pacing leads and 2 left ventricular leads). The mean time from the implantation was 92.2 ±43.2 (48-152) months. In all cases Cook mechanical sheaths were applied. The use of the Evolution system was necessary to extract 3 leads. In all cases the new leads were successfully implanted as planned. No serious complications occurred.

Conclusions

Diagnosis of venous occlusion should not be a contraindication for ipsilateral implantation of the new lead, because the techniques of transvenous lead extraction enable successful regaining of venous access.

Treatment of pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome by balloon angioplasty and stenting

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a rare but serious complication after pacemaker implantation. This report describes three cases of SVC syndrome treated with venoplasty and venous stenting, with an average follow-up of 30.7 (±3.1) months. These cases illustrate that the definitive diagnosis, and the extent and location of venous obstruction, can only be determined by venography.

[Superior vena cava syndrome induced by pacemaker probes, 12 years after introduction]

Superior vena cava syndrome is a rare disease, most often found to result from a malignant process, which causes extrinsic compression of the superior vena cava. In recent years, there has been an increase of superior vena cava syndrome related to medical devices (implantable site, pacemaker [PM], central venous line for parenteral nutrition...). We report the case of a 37-year-old patient who developed a superior vena cava syndrome 12 years after implantation of a PM. The diagnosis was established on venography after two negative venous-CT focused on the superior vena cava. The superior vena cava syndrome improved immediately after angioplasty and stenting covering the PM probes at the superior vena cava/brachiocephalic venous trunk junction.

Percutaneous Transvenous Angioplasty of Left Innominate Vein Stenosis Following Right Side Permanent Pacemaker Implantation- A Left Femoral Vein to Left Axillary Vein Approach

Central venous stenosis after the insertion of a permanent pacemaker is a well recognized complication. This late complication is encountered when there is a need to change the pacemaker lead or extract it. We describe a young male who had such a complication after many years after right side pacemaker implantation. The lesion was managed percutaneously leading to placement of a new lead from the left side.

Mobile Thrombus on Device Leads in Patients Undergoing Ablation

Background—

Mobile thrombi, not routinely recognized on transthoracic echocardiography, are frequently identified on cardiovascular implantable electronic device leads with intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) during ablation procedures. Their incidence, characteristics, and consequences have not yet been defined.

Methods and Results—

We used ICE to examine leads for thrombi and to measure the pulmonary artery systolic pressure in patients with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device presenting for ablation. Patient clinical characteristics, device type, and lead characteristics were correlated with presence of thrombi. Most patients had congestive heart failure (84%), with an average left ventricular ejection fraction of 40%. Thrombi were seen with ICE in 26 of 86 patients (30%) but were seen on transthoracic echocardiography in only 1 of the 26 patients. Thrombi on ICE were mobile, averaged 18±5.9 mm long by 4.4±2.3 mm wide, and were more commonly identified in the right atrium (n=25) than in the right ventricle (n=5). Thrombi were associated with higher pulmonary artery systolic pressure: 39±9 mm Hg with thrombi versus 33±7 mm Hg without thrombi (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.20; P =0.01). No other characteristic assessed was associated with a significant difference in the presence of lead thrombi.

Conclusions—

Mobile thrombi on cardiovascular implantable electronic device leads are present in 30% of patients undergoing ablation and are readily identified with ICE despite being underrecognized with transthoracic echocardiography. Further study is warranted to determine whether lead thrombi are a clinically relevant source of pulmonary emboli in some patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

Prevalence of asymptomatic upper extremity venous obstruction in 302 patients undergoing first implantation of cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the prevalence of upper extremity vein obstruction or anomalies in patients before first implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). It remains unclear in which patients contrast venography is warranted before implantation procedure.

METHODS

Results of clinical data and contrast venography of 302 consecutive patients scheduled for first ICD implantation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Prevalence of upper vein obstruction was 6.6% (20/302 patients) in a typical patient population undergoing first ICD implantation. Age, left ventricular ejection fraction, underlying heart disease, prior open-heart surgery, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation were not predictors of obstruction. Patients with previous cardiac pacemaker implantation had a higher rate of obstruction, though this was not statistically significant (20% vs 15.7%, P = 0.54). Persistent left vena cava was found in 0.7%.

CONCLUSION

There is no clinical parameter sufficient enough to predict upper extremity venous obstruction. Contrast venography may be considered in patients with previous pacemaker placement but should not be a routine diagnostic tool in unselected patients prior to first ICD-implantation procedure.

Utility and safety of axillo-subclavian venous imaging with carbon dioxide (CO) prior to chronic lead system revisions

BACKGROUND

Prior to attempting placement of one or more electrodes to revise existing rhythm control devices, patency of the central veins should be documented, in view of a high incidence of significant chronic occlusions. Since iodinated contrast venography may be contraindicated in select situations, imaging of the axillo-subclavian venous system with gaseous carbon dioxide (CO(2)) was evaluated prospectively in 23 consecutive individuals who were considered for revision of previously implanted pacemaker or automatic cardioverter defibrillator lead systems.

METHODS

Approximately 20 mL of CO(2) were manually infused via CO(2) primed injection tubing into a vein at or above the level of the antecubital fossa ipsilateral to the side of prior lead placements. Digital subtraction imaging over the axillo-subclavian region, lower neck, and mediastinum was performed. Formal interpretation was obtained from one of three interventional radiologists and at least one electrophysiologist.

RESULTS

Significant venous occlusions were identified in five (22%) patients. Vascular access utilized for the subsequent 18 revisions performed included the imaged patent ipsilateral vein in 14 patients and the contralateral, right-sided subclavian venous system in three patients. One patient required epicardial left ventricular lead placement. There were no complications from venography.

CONCLUSIONS

Axillo-subclavian venography with gaseous CO(2) in patients undergoing pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead revisions is feasible and safe when use of iodinated dye is contraindicated. This technique should be employed in patients with azotemia, dye contrast allergies, or significant inflammation in the vicinity of the intravenous line insertion.