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

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.

Safety and success of transvenous lead extraction using excimer laser sheaths: a meta-analysis of over 1700 patients

AIMS

While numerous studies have demonstrated favourable safety and efficacy of the excimer laser sheath for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in smaller cohorts, comprehensive large-scale investigations with contemporary data remain scarce. This study aims to evaluate the safety and performance of laser-assisted TLE through a meta-analysis of contemporary data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that assessed the safety and performance of the spectranetics laser sheath (SLS) II and GlideLight Excimer laser sheaths in TLE procedures between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021. Safety outcomes included procedure-related death and major/minor complications. Performance outcomes included procedural and clinical success rates. A random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted average of the evaluated outcomes. In total, 17 articles were identified and evaluated, including 1729 patients with 2887 leads. Each patient, on average, had 2.3 ± 0.3 leads with a dwell time of 7.9 ± 3.0 years. The TLE procedural successes rate was 96.8% [1440/1505; 95% CI: (94.9-98.2%)] per patient and 96.3% [1447/1501; 95% CI: (94.8-97.4%)] per lead, and the clinical success rate per patient was 98.3% [989/1010, 95% CI: (97.4-99.0%)]. The procedure-related death rate was 0.08% [7/1729, 95% CI: (0.00%, 0.34%)], with major and minor complication rates of 1.9% [41/1729; 95% CI: (1.2-2.8%)] and 1.9% [58/1729; 95% CI: (0.8-3.6%)], respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that excimer laser sheath-assisted TLE has high success and low procedural mortality rates. It provides clinicians with a reliable and valuable resource for extracting indwelling cardiac leads which require advanced extraction techniques.

Transvenous Lead Extraction during Cardiac Implantable Device Upgrade: Results from the Multicenter Swiss Lead Extraction Registry

BACKGROUND

Device patients may require upgrade interventions from simpler to more complex cardiac implantable electronic devices. Prior to upgrading interventions, clinicians need to balance the risks and benefits of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), additional lead implantation or lead abandonment. However, evidence on procedural outcomes of TLE at the time of device upgrade is scarce.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the investigator-initiated multicenter Swiss TLE registry. The objectives were to assess patient and procedural factors influencing TLE outcomes at the time of device upgrades.

RESULTS

941 patients were included, whereof 83 (8.8%) had TLE due to a device upgrade. Rotational mechanical sheaths were more often used in upgraded patients (59% vs. 42.7%, p = 0.015) and total median procedure time was longer in these patients (160 min vs. 105 min, p < 0.001). Clinical success rates of upgraded patients compared to those who received TLE due to other reasons were not different (97.6% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.569). Moreover, multivariable analysis showed that upgrade procedures were not associated with a greater risk for complications (HR 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.57, p = 0.224; intraprocedural complication rate of upgraded patients 7.2% vs. 5.5%). Intraprocedural complications of upgraded patients were mostly associated with the implantation and not the extraction procedure (67% vs. 33% of complications).

CONCLUSIONS

TLE during device upgrade is effective and does not attribute a disproportionate risk to the upgrade procedure.

Efficacy and Safety of Transvenous Lead Extraction at the Time of Upgrade from Pacemakers to Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Upgrading from pacemakers to ICDs and CRTs is a difficult procedure, and often, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is necessary for venous access. TLE is considered riskier in patients with multiple diseases. We aimed to assess the complexity, risk, and outcome of TLE among CRT and ICD candidates.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical data from 2408 patients undergoing TLE between 2006 and 2021. There were 138 patients upgraded to CRT-D, 33 patients upgraded to CRT-P and 89 individuals upgraded to ICD versus 2148 patients undergoing TLE for other non-infectious indications.

RESULTS

The need for an upgrade was the leading indication for TLE in only 36-66% of patients. In 42.0-57.6% of patients, the upgrade procedure could be successfully done only after reestablishing access to the occluded vein. All leads were extracted in 68.1-76.4% of patients, functional leads were retained in 20.2-31.9%, non-functional leads were left in place in 0.0-1.1%, and non-functional superfluous leads were extracted in 3.6-8.4%. The long-term survival rate of patients in the CRT-upgrade group was lower (63.8%) than in the non-upgrade group (75.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading a patient from an existing pacemaker to an ICD/CRT is feasible in 100% of cases, provided that TLE is performed for venous access. Major complications of TLE at the time of device upgrade are rare and, if present do not result in death.

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.

Assessment of Association Between Venous Occlusion and Infection of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

The increasing number of patients treated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and indications for complex pacing requires system revisions. Currently, data on venous patency in repeat CIED surgery involving lead (re)placement or extraction are largely missing. This study aimed to assess venous patency and risk factors in patients referred for repeat CIED lead surgery, emphasizing CIED infection. All consecutive patients requiring extraction, exchange, or additional placement of ≥1 CIED leads during reoperative procedures from January 2015 to March 2020 were evaluated in this retrospective study. Venography was performed in 475 patients. Venous patency could be assessed in 387 patients (81.5%). CIED infection with venous occlusion was detected in 74 patients compared with venous occlusion without infection in 14 patients (P < .05). Concerning venous patency, novel oral anticoagulant medication appeared to be protective (P < .05; odds ratio [OR]: .35). Infection of the CIED appeared to be strongly associated with venous occlusion (OR: 16.0). The sensitivity was only 64.15%, but the specificity was 96.1%. Number of leads involved and previous CIED procedures were not associated with venous occlusion. In conclusion, in patients with CIED, venous occlusion was strongly associated with device infection, but not with the number of leads or previous CIED procedures.

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.

Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in Patients With Implanted Cardiac Devices: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Cardiac implantable electronic device implantation rates have increased in recent decades. Venous obstruction of the subclavian, brachiocephalic, or superior vena cava veins represents an important complication of implanted leads. These forms of venous obstruction can result in significant symptoms as well as present a barrier to the implantation of additional device leads. The risk factors for the development of these complications remain poorly understood, and diagnosis relies on clinical recognition and cross-sectional imaging. Anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment, and thrombus debulking, lead extraction, venoplasty, and stenting are all important therapeutic interventions. This review provides a multidisciplinary-based approach to the evaluation and management of cardiac implantable electronic device lead-associated venous obstruction.

Lead extractions: dissecting adhesions up to the lead-tip of the right ventricle: safety and success-rates

AIMS

Goal of Transvenous Lead Extraction (TLE) is complete removal of all targeted leads, without complications. Despite counter traction manoeuvres, efficacy rates are often hampered by broken right ventricle lead (RV-lead) tips. Mechanically powered lead extraction (Evolution sheath) is effective, however safety of dissection up to the lead tip is unclear. Therefore, we examined the feasibility and safety of RV-lead extraction requiring dissection up to the myocardium.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From 2009 to 2018, all TLE in the Isala Heart Centre (Zwolle, The Netherlands) requiring the hand-powered mechanical Evolution system to extract RV-leads (n = 185) were examined from a prospective registry. We assessed 4 groups: TLE with the first generation Evolution (n = 43) with (A1,n = 18) and without (A2,n = 25) adhesions up to the myocardium and TLE with the Novel R/L type (n = 142) of sheath with (B1, n = 59) and without (B2, n = 83) adhesions up to the myocardium. Complete success rate in Group B was significantly higher than group A (96.5 vs 76.7%, p = 0.0354). When comparing the patients with adhesions up to the myocardium, total complete success is higher in the R/L group (61.1% vs 90.5%, p = 0.0067). There were no deaths. Overall major complication rates were low (2/185; 1.1%) and there was no statistically significant difference in major and minor complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Extraction strategy with the bidirectional Evolution R/L sheath for right ventricular leads with adhesions up to the myocardium is safe and feasible.

Efficacy and mortality of rotating sheaths versus laser sheaths for transvenous lead extraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rotating and laser sheaths are both routinely used in transvenous lead extraction (TLE) which can lead to catastrophic complications including death. The efficacy and risk of each approach are uncertain. To perform a meta-analysis to compare success and mortality rates associated with rotating and laser sheaths.

METHODS

We searched electronic academic databases for case series of consecutive patients and randomized controlled trials published 1998-2017 describing the use of rotating and laser sheaths for TLE. Among 48 studies identified, rotating sheaths included 1,094 patients with 1,955 leads in 14 studies, and laser sheaths included 7,775 patients with 12,339 leads in 34 studies. Patients receiving rotating sheaths were older (63 versus 60 years old) and were more often male (74% versus 72%); CRT-P/Ds were more commonly extracted using rotating sheaths (12% versus 7%), whereas ICDs were less common (37% versus 42%), p > 0.05 for all. Infection as an indication for lead extraction was higher in the rotating sheath group (59.8% versus 52.9%, p = 0.002). The mean time from initial lead implantation was 7.2 years for rotating sheaths and 6.3 years for laser sheaths (p > 0.05).

RESULTS

Success rates for complete removal of transvenous leads were 95.1% in rotating sheaths and 93.4% in laser sheaths (p < 0.05). There was one death among 1,094 patients (0.09%) in rotating sheaths and 66 deaths among 7,775 patients (0.85%) in laser sheaths, translating to a 9.3-fold higher risk of death with laser sheaths (95% CI 1.3 to 66.9, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Laser sheaths were associated with lower complete lead removal rate and a 9.3-fold higher risk of death.

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.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

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.

"Retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty" for obtaining venous access in patients with refractory venous obstruction

BACKGROUND

Patients with wire and catheter refractory venous occlusion are traditionally referred for pectoral transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to obtain venous access. TLE causes 1-2 mm circumferential mechanical or laser destruction of tissue surrounding the lead(s). This not only exposes the patient to the risk of major complications but also can damage nontargeted leads. We present a series of patients where retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty was used to obtain venous access in patients with refractory obstruction.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2021, we identified 17 patients where retained wire lead removal followed by fibroplasty was used to retain venous access. Demographic and procedural data were obtained by retrospective review of patient charts.

RESULTS

We were able to successfully obtain venous access in all 17 patients in whom this technique was attempted. In two patients the target lead was less than or equal to 1 year old. In the remaining 15 patients, the average dwell time of the target lead(s) was 6 years. There were no procedure-related complications, and no changes in the parameters of other leads were noted.

CONCLUSION

Retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty is safe and highly efficacious at obtaining venous access in patients with refractory venous occlusion. If the target lead(s) is less than or equal to 1 year old, this technique can help obtain venous access at the time of the initial surgery, hence avoiding the need for TLE. Furthermore, in patients referred for TLE to obtain venous access, this technique by avoiding the use of TLE tools spares the patient of the associated risks.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Knowledge gaps, lack of confidence, and system barriers to guideline implementation among European physicians managing patients with CIED lead or infection complications: a European Heart Rhythm Association/European Society of Cardiology educational needs assessment survey

As the number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) grows, they are likely to present with issues to diverse groups of physicians. Guideline-adherent management is associated with improved prognosis in patients with CIED infection or lead problems but is insufficiently implemented in practice. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) with the support of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery, performed a multinational educational needs assessment study in ESC member countries, directed at physicians who might be confronted with CIED patients with complications. A total of 336 physicians from 43 countries, reached through the ESC mailing list, participated. They included a mix of electrophysiologists, cardiologists general physicians and cardiac surgeons .One hundred and twenty-nine (38%) of the respondents performed lead extraction. The survey included eight clinical cases and a self-evaluation question of knowledge and skills to apply that knowledge. The survey looked at 14 areas of care across five stages of the patient journey. Of the non-extracting physicians over 50% felt they lacked the knowledge and skills to make the diagnosis and refer for lead extraction and over 75% felt they lacked knowledge and skills to manage aspects of extraction and post-extraction care. Barriers to correct referral were logistic and attitudinal. Extracting physicians reported significantly higher rates of adequate skills and knowledge across all five stages of the patient journey (P < 0.05). We identified major gaps in physicians' knowledge and skills across all stages of CIED care. These gaps should be addressed by targeted educational activities and streamlining referral pathways.

Long-term incidence of upper extremity venous obstruction in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients

BACKGROUND

Very little is known about the long-term prevalence of severe venous obstruction and occlusion in patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. The objective of the current investigation was to elucidate the incidence and prevalence and to identify predisposing conditions in an ICD cohort over a long follow-up period.

METHODS

Based on a prospective database, we analyzed consecutive patients who received an ICD implantation in our hospital between 06/1988 and 2009 as well as all corresponding follow-up data until 02/2018. Cavographies were used for analysis, and all patients with at least one device replacement and one follow-up cavography were included.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up period of 94 ± 50 months, severe venous obstruction was found in 147 (33%) of 448 patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis shows a severe obstruction or occlusion in 50% of patients after a period of 14.3 years. The total number of leads (p < .001, HR 2.01, CI 2.000-2.022), an advanced age (p = .004, HR 1.023 per year, CI 1.022-1.024) and the presence of dilated cardiomyopathy (p = .035, HR 1.49, CI 1.47-1.51) were predictive of venous obstruction whereas the presence of anticoagulation was not.

CONCLUSION

Severe obstruction of the access veins after ICD implantation occurs frequently and its prevalence shows a nearly linear increase over long-time follow-up. Multiple leads, an advanced age and DCM as underlying disease are associated with an increased risk of venous obstruction while the role of anticoagulation to prevent venous obstruction in ICD patients is unclear.

Percutaneous management of superior vena cava syndrome in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding the optimal management of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)-related superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

We report our experience with transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) in the setting of symptomatic CIED-related SVC syndrome.

METHODS

We reviewed all TLEs performed at a high-volume center over a 14-year period and identified patients in which TLE was performed for symptomatic SVC syndrome. Patient characteristics, extraction details, percutaneous management of SVC occlusions, and clinical follow up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over a 14-year period, more than 1600 TLEs were performed. Of these, 16 patients underwent TLE for symptomatic SVC syndrome. The mean age was 53.1 ± 12.8 years, and 9 (56.3%) were men. Thirty-seven leads, with a mean dwell time of 5.8 years (range 2-12 years), were extracted. After extraction, 6 patients (37.5%) received an SVC stent. Balloon angioplasty was performed before stenting in 5 cases (31.3%). There was 1 major complication (6.3%) due to an SVC tear that was managed surgically with a favorable outcome. Eleven patients underwent reimplantation of a CIED. Over a median follow-up of 5.5 years (interquartile range 2.0-8.5 years), 12 patients (75%) remained free of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Combining TLE with the percutaneous treatment of symptomatic SVC syndrome is a safe and viable treatment strategy.

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

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

Complications associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades versus de novo implantations

INTRODUCTION

A significant number of patients undergo upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). These patients tend to differ from individuals undergoing de novo CRT implantations both in terms of their baseline demographics and the etiology underlying their heart failure. Areas covered: There are several factors that need to be considered when upgrading patients to CRT, such as, venous patency. Potentially, these conditions can cause issues which may result in procedures being more difficult than de novo implantations. This article discusses these issues and compares the rates of procedural-related complications for CRT upgrades and de novo implantations. It discusses the proportion of patients that are likely to respond to CRT with each intervention. Expert commentary: Understanding the relative risks of CRT upgrades versus de novo implantations is important to help operators select the correct initial device and counsel patients accordingly. Growing experience with image-guided implantations and endocardial pacing may prove to be particularly relevant to patients undergoing CRT upgrades.

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.

Creation of the sole regional laser lead extraction program serving Atlantic Canada: initial experience

BACKGROUND

An increasing need for laser lead extraction has grown in parallel with the increase of implantation of pacing and defibrillating devices. We reviewed the initial experience of a regional laser-assisted lead extraction program serving Atlantic Canada.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of all consecutive patients who underwent laser lead extraction at the Maritime Heart Centre in Halifax, NS, between 2006 and 2015. We conducted univariate and Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses.

RESULTS

During the 9-year study period, 108 consecutive patients underwent laser lead extractions (218 leads extracted). The most common indication for extraction was infection (84.3%). Most patients were older than 60 years (73.1%) and had leads chronically implanted; the explanted leads were an average of 7.5 ± 6.8 years old. Procedural and clinical success (resolution of preoperative symptoms) rates and mortality were 96.8%, 97.2%, and 0.9%, respectively. Sternotomy procedures were performed in 3 instances: once for vascular repair due to perforation and twice to ensure that all infected lead material was removed. No minor complications required surgical intervention. Survival after discharge was 98.4% at 30 days and 94% at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Atlantic Canada's sole surgical extraction centre achieved high extraction success with a low complication rate. Lead extraction in an operative setting provides for immediate surgical intervention and is essential for the survival of patients with complicated cases. Surgeons must weigh the risks versus benefits in patients older than 60 years who have chronically implanted leads (> 1 yr) and infection.

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.

Overcoming a subclavian complete occlusion: Simple single lead extraction by the subclavian vein allowing implantation of two new leads and upgrade to CRT-P with multi-site pacing

Central venous obstruction following pacemaker implantation is not uncommon, and can prove challenging in the case of system upgrade. We report a case of DDDR to CRT-P (with multi-site pacing) upgrade, where a subclavian occlusion was overcome resorting to an atrial lead extraction (using only a locking stylet). This allowed regaining of the venous access with subsequent implantation of not just one, but two new leads and subsequent successful upgrade.

Identification of bacteriology and risk factor analysis of asymptomatic bacterial colonization in pacemaker replacement patients

Background

Recent researches revealed that asymptomatic bacterial colonization on PMs might be ubiquitous and increase the risk of clinical PM infection. Early diagnosis of patients with asymptomatic bacterial colonization could provide opportunity for targeted preventive measures.

Objective

The present study explores the incidence of bacterial colonization of generator pockets in pacemaker replacement patients without signs of infection, and to analyze risk factors for asymptomatic bacterial colonization.

Methods

From June 2011 to December 2013, 118 patients underwent pacemaker replacement or upgrade. Identification of bacteria was carried out by bacterial culture and 16S rRNA sequencing. Clinical risk characteristics were analyzed.

Results

The total bacterial positive rate was 37.3% (44 cases), and the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus aureus detection rate was the highest. Twenty two (18.6%) patients had positive bacterial culture results, of which 50% had coagulase-negative staphylococcus. The bacterial DNA detection rate was 36.4 % (43 cases). Positive bacterial DNA results from pocket tissues and the surface of the devices were 22.0% and 29.7%, respectively. During follow-up (median, 27.0 months), three patients (6.8%, 3/44) became symptomatic with the same genus of microorganism, S. aureus (n=2) and S. epidermidis (n=1). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that history of bacterial infection, use of antibiotics, application of antiplatelet drugs, replacement frequency were independent risk factors for asymptomatic bacterial colonization.

Conclusion

There was a high incidence of asymptomatic bacterial colonization in pacemaker patients with independent risk factors. Bacterial culture combined genetic testing could improve the detection rate.

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.

Genetic identification and risk factor analysis of asymptomatic bacterial colonization on cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

Asymptomatic bacterial colonization of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is widespread and increases the risk of clinical CIED infection. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of bacterial colonization of generator pockets in patients without signs of infection and to analyze the relationship with clinical infection and risk factors. From June 2011 to December 2012, 78 patients underwent CIED replacement or upgrade. Exclusion criteria included a clinical diagnosis of CIED infection, bacteremia, or infective endocarditis. All patients were examined for evidence of bacterial 16S rDNA on the device and in the surrounding tissues. Infection cases were recorded during follow-up. The bacterial-positive rate was 38.5% (30 cases); the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus detection rate was the highest (9 cases, 11.5%). Positive bacterial DNA results were obtained from pocket tissue in 23.1% of patients (18 cases), and bacterial DNA was detected on the device in 29.5% of patients (23 cases). During follow-up (median 24.6 months), two patients (6.7%, 2/30) became symptomatic with the same species of microorganism, S. aureus and S. epidermidis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that the history of bacterial infection, use of antibiotics, application of antiplatelet drugs, replacement frequency, and renal insufficiency were independent risk factors for asymptomatic bacterial colonization.

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.