Multiple Pacing Lead-Induced Superior Vena Cava Syndrome: Successful Treatment by Balloon Angioplasty

Endovascular treatments of tunneled central venous catheter-induced superior vena cava complete occlusion via through-and-through technique

BACKGROUND

Superior vena cava occlusion (SVCO) induced by tunneled central venous catheter (tCVC) is an uncommon but challenging complication of hemodialysis patients. The aim of this study was to access the efficacy, safety, and patency of stents in tCVC-related SVCO via through-and-through technique.

METHOD

We retrospectively identified seven patients with benign SVCO secondary to tCVC treated with endovascular approaches successfully between 1 March 2013 and 31 October 2019. Patients' demographic data, clinical signs and symptoms, and imaging data were followed up and recorded.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all cases. All the patients were performed with percutaneous transcatheter angioplasty (PTA) and subsequently stent placement via the through-and-through technique. During follow-up, four patients underwent secondary interventions, including PTA and/or stent placement. The primary patency after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months was 100%, 100%, 86% and 86%, and secondary patency after 12 months was 100%. No procedure-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular management of SVCO is a safe and effective approach. CT examination can provide a direction for endovascular treatment and periodic surveillance.

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.

Venous Obstruction in Cardiac Rhythm Device Therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A variety of complex vascular pathologies arise following the implantation of electronic cardiac devices. Pacemaker and defibrillator lead insertion may cause proximal venous obstruction, resulting in symptomatic venous congestion and the compromise of potential future access sites for cardiac rhythm lead management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Various innovative techniques to recanalize the vein and establish alternate venous access have been pioneered over the past few years. A collaborative team of electrophysiologists and vascular specialists strategically integrate the patient's vascular disease into the planning of electrophysiology procedures. When vascular complications occur after device implantation, the same team effectively manages both the resulting vascular sequelae and related cardiac rhythm device challenges. This review will outline the various vascular challenges related to device therapy and offer an effective strategy for their management.

Leadless pacing in a patient with superior vena cava syndrome undergoing lead extraction and percutaneous angioplasty

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is an uncommon but serious complication associated with chronic transvenous implanted leads. In the recent past, open-heart surgery combining lead extraction and epicardial implant was usually performed to reduce syndrome recurrences. We describe the case of a 78-year-old man successfully treated by percutaneous lead extraction associated with venous balloon angioplasty and reimplantation of leadless pacemaker. <Learning objective: Chronic vascular complications following lead implantation usually require surgical treatment, due to the need for subsequent epicardial implantation. Percutaneous lead extraction along with leadless pacing allowed effective non-surgical management of chronic complications of transvenous pacing.>.

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.

A case of pacing lead induced clinical superior vena cava syndrome: a case report

Introduction

Transvenous pacing is a relatively safe treatment with a low complication rate, but serious thromboembolic complications have been reported to occur in 0.6% to 3.5% of cases. Superior vena cava obstruction syndrome is generally an uncommon but serious complication occurring in <0.1% of patients. However, when it occurs it carries with it significant morbidity and mortality.

Case presentation

A 51-year-old lady with long history of DDD permanent pacemaker presented following a mechanical fall. She had no obvious injuries, and was hemodynamically stable. General examination revealed features suggestive of Superior vena caval obstruction which was later confirmed by imaging. She was treated with long term oral anticoagulation with good clinical improvement.

Conclusion

Superior vena cava obstruction in patients with transvenous pacing leads, although rare, is a well recognized complication. With growing elderly population and increasing number of procedures performed, more and more people with permanent pacemaker are likely to be encountered in clinical practice. One should carefully look for thromboembolic complications during follow-up in patients with transvenous pacemaker leads, as it has implications for future management and carries significant morbidity and mortality.

Superior vena cava syndrome induced by endocardial defibrillator and pacemaker leads

Two cases of superior vena cava syndrome induced by endocardial defibrillator and pacemaker leads are described. The 2 patients had histories of multiple endocardial leads and device upgrades and venous thrombosis. The first patient was treated with laser lead extraction followed by percutaneous venoplasty and stenting. The second patient was treated conservatively with long-term anticoagulation. The 2 patients had symptomatic reduction. In conclusion, superior vena cava syndrome induced by transvenous leads is an uncommon but serious complication. Anticoagulation can be effective in select patients, but in severe cases, thrombolytic therapy or surgical or percutaneous intervention may be required.

Venous Obstruction After Pacemaker Implantation

BACKGROUND

Central vein leads are known to predispose to venous obstruction. Although usually asymptomatic, obstruction may render electrode removal difficult. This study aimed at quantifying changes in venous calibers in a prospective fashion by intravenous contrast venography (ICV) before and after pacemaker (PM) or cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty (mean age 67; 61% male) consecutive patients were enrolled, and followed for 6 months. A successful ICV was done at baseline prior to implantation and at 6-month follow-up in 136 (91%) patients. Minimum (D(min)) and maximum (D(max)) vessel diameters were obtained from both ICVs. A new stenosis was defined as a 50% diameter reduction in a venous segment when compared to baseline. We implanted a total of 230 electrodes: 47 (34.6%) single lead, 84 (61.8%) 2-lead, and 5 (3.7%) 3-lead systems.

RESULTS

At baseline ICV, 10 patients (7%) were found to have venous anomalies, including 8 patients with obstructive lesions, 1 patient with a persistent left superior vena cava, and 1 patient with double axillary vein. At 6 months, a new obstructive venous lesion had developed in a total of 19 (14%) patients, none of whom exhibited any local symptoms. Of these patients 14 (10%) had a stenosis (mean D(min) 4.6 mm and diameter 38% of baseline), and 5 (3.6%) had a complete venous occlusion. In most cases the new stenosis developed in a location where the vessel was narrowest at baseline. Clinical predictors for the development of stenosis were atrial fibrillation at baseline and biventricular PM implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic study to quantify venous changes after PM or ICD implantation. Our study shows that venous anomalies rendering PM implantation difficult are not infrequent. The incidence of new venous obstruction was 14%. Atrial fibrillation and biventricular PM implantation were independent predictors of venous obstruction.