Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools

BACKGROUND

Extraction of a broken lead fragment (BLF) has received scant attention in the literature.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for BLF removal during 127 procedures.

RESULTS

A superior approach was the most popular (75.6%), femoral (15.7%) and combined (8.7%) approaches were the least common. Of 127 BLFs 78 (61.4%) were removed in their entirety and BLF length was significantly reduced to less than 4 cm in 21 (16.5%) or lead tip in 12 (9.4%) cases. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (62/93 66.7% of longer BLFs), either in the case of BLFs free-floating in vascular bed including pulmonary circulation (68.4% of them) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0% of short BLFs). Complete procedural success was achieved in 57.5% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall in 12 cases (9.4%) and short BLFs were found in 26.0%, whereas BLFs >4 cm were left in place in four cases (3.1%) of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long-term mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success-57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction.

Effective and safe mechanical transvenous lead extraction in a low-volume center

Background

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of cardiac implantable electronic devices was once deemed highly risky by high-volume centers. However, advancements in technology have significantly reduced the risk, making TLE a safer procedure in electrophysiology.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of mechanical TLEs in a low-volume center with a single operator.

Methods

This study retrospectively accessed electronic medical records from the Tulane University School of Medicine system in New Orleans, Louisiana, and included patients who received mechanical TLE from 2016 to 2023. We analyzed the indications for TLE, patient characteristics, lead characteristics, success rate, and complications.

Results

We included 149 consecutive mechanical TLEs with an average implant duration of 105 months. A total of 53.7% (80) of TLEs were indicated for infectious reasons, and 37.6% (56) were high-voltage leads. Clinical success and complete procedural success rates were both 94.6% with no procedure-related mortality or major complications. The periprocedural mortality rate was 1.25% (1). Minor complications included a left chest pocket hematoma, a left groin hematoma, and urinary retention.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of mechanical TLEs performed in a low-volume center are comparable with those in high-volume centers.

Lead Break during Extraction: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Procedure Complexity and Outcome: Analysis of 3825 Procedures

Background: Currently, there are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead, defined as LB, with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78%, and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04% of the cases studied. In cases in which the lead remnant comprises more than the tip only, there was a 50.31% chance of removing the lead fragment in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity, including long lead dwell time [OR = 1.018], a higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures, and the extraction of passive fixation leads. The LECOM and LED scores also exhibit a high predictive value. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96 vs. 1.53%). There was no incidence of procedure-related death among such patients, and LB did not affect the survival statistics after TLE. Conclusions: LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures, and this predictable difficulty increases procedure complexity and the risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning the lead extraction strategy and its associated training.

Transvenous Lead Extraction: Outcomes From a Single Centre Providing a National Service for New Zealand

BACKGROUND

With increasing demand for cardiac implantable electronic devices there is a parallel increase in the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Due to its small population, all TLE procedures in New Zealand are currently performed in a single centre, Auckland City Hospital. We analysed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of those undergoing TLE since this service was established.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of all TLE procedures between October 2015 and December 2021. Definitions from the European Lead Extraction Controlled study, Heart Rhythm Society, European Heart Rhythm Association consensus documents were used.

RESULTS

A total of 247 patients had 480 leads extracted, averaging 40 TLE procedures annually. Patients had a median lead dwell time of 6 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-11) years, 60 (13%) of leads had been in-situ >15 years, median age 61 (IQR 48-70) years, 73 (30%) female, 28 (11%) Māori, 23 (9%) Pasifika. Lead dysfunction (115 patients, 47%) and infection (90 patients, 37%) were the most common indications for TLE. Complete clinical and radiological success was achieved for 96% and 95%, respectively. Procedure-related complications occurred in 16 (7%) patients. Major intra-procedure complications occurred in 5 patients (2%), including 2 (1%) deaths. Death within one year of TLE occurred in 13 (26%) with systemic infection, 5 (3%) with local infection, and 5 (3%) with non-infection indications for TLE, p <0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE is associated with high radiographic and clinical success, low complication, and low mortality rate. At our single centre providing a national service, TLE outcomes are comparable with those achieved internationally.

Efficacy and safety of the extraction of cardiostimulation leads using a mechanical dissection tool. A single center experience

BACKGROUND

The percutaneous extraction of endovascular cardiostimulation and defibrillation leads is the most frequent technique nowadays. The tools used today must guarantee the success of the procedure, with the minimum of complications. Our objective was to analyze the safety and efficacy of lead extraction using the Evolution mechanical dissection tool (Cook Medical, USA).

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out in a total of 826 consecutive patients from October 2009 to December 2018 who underwent the procedure with the Evolution mechanical dissection tool. Preoperative study included complete blood tests, echocardiogram, and chest X-ray. The procedures were performed in the operating room, under general anesthesia and echocardiographic control.

RESULTS

A total of 1227 leads were extracted with a mean chronicity of 10.3 ± 5.1 years. Clinical success (CS) rate was 99.7%. A total of 16 (1.9%) complications occurred, 2 (0.24%) were major complications and 14 (1.7%) were minor complications. There was no operative mortality. There was no statistically significant relationship between implant chamber and complete efficacy. The complete extraction was achieved in all left ventricular leads, in 762 of 774 (98.45%) of right ventricular lead removal, and in 330 of 334 (98.8%) of right atrial leads (p = .31).

CONCLUSION

In our experience, percutaneous extraction of intravenous leads via the use of the Evolution tool (Cook Medical, USA), is a very effective and safe technique that offers low morbidity and mortality.

Assessment of the impact of organisational model of transvenous lead extraction on the effectiveness and safety of procedure: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the impact of the organisational model of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) on effectiveness and safety of procedures.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of patient data entered prospectively into a computer database.

SETTING

Data of all patients undergoing TLE in three centres in Poland between 2006 and 2021 were analysed.

PARTICIPANTS

3462 patients including: 985 patients undergoing TLE in a hybrid room (HR), with cardiac surgeon (CS) as co-operator, under general anaesthesia (GA), with arterial line (AL) and with transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) monitoring (group 1), 68 patients-TLE in HR with CS, under GA, without TEE (group 2), 406 patients-TLE in operating theatre (OT) using 'arm-C' X-ray machine with CS under GA and with TEE (group 3), 154 patients-TLE in OT with CS under GA, without TEE (group 4), 113 patients-TLE in OT with anaesthesia team, using the 'arm-C' X-ray machine, without CS (group 5), 122 patients-TLE in electrophysiology lab (EPL), with CS under intravenous analgesia without TEE and AL (group 6), 1614 patients-TLE in EPL, without CS, under intravenous analgesia without TEE and AL (group 7).

KEY OUTCOME MEASURE

Effectiveness and safety of TLE depending on organisational model.

RESULTS

The rate of major complications (MC) was higher in OT/HR than in EPL (2.66% vs 1.38%), but all MCs were treated successfully and there was no MC-related death. The use of TEE during TLE increased probability of complete procedural succemss achieving about 1.5 times (OR=1.482; p<0.034) and were connected with reduction of minor complications occurrence (OR=0.751; p=0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important condition to avoid death due to MC is close co-operation with cardiac surgery team, which permits for urgent rescue cardiac surgery. Continuous TEE monitoring plays predominant role in immediate decision on rescue sternotomy and improves the effectiveness of procedure.

Outcomes in cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis: a systematic review of current literature

Aim: Cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis is a serious infection with poor prognosis. Materials & methods: The systematic review of the literature was conducted using searches from the various databases. We included studies published between January 2010 and June 2021. Results: A total of 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. Patients were approximately 70 years old and an average of 71.2% of patients were male. The most common presenting feature was a fever. The modified Duke criteria was used to aid diagnosis. Management entailed extraction of the cardiac implantable electronic device in 80.5% of the studies. The overall mortality rates ranged from 4 to 36%. The most frequently isolated organism was Staphylococcus aureus. Conclusion: Cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis needs timely diagnosis and effective management for promising outcomes.

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.

Monitoring excimer laser-guided cardiac lead extractions by uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

Though laser guided extractions of cardiac implantable electronic devices leads have become a routine procedure, the severe complications are associated with a high mortality. Here, we report our single center experience using uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy for laser lead extraction and compare it to stand-alone laser lead extraction.

METHODS

The intraoperative data and postoperative clinical outcomes of patients undergoing laser lead extraction with concomitant thoracoscopy (N = 28) or without (N = 43) in our institution were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Neither the median x-ray time (612.0 s for the thoracoscopy group vs. 495.5 s for the non-thoracoscopy group, p = 0.962), length of the operation (112.5 vs. 100.0 min, p = 0.676) or the median length of hospital stay (9.0 vs. 10.0 days, p = 0.990) differed significantly. The mean intensive care unit stay was longer for patients in the non-thoracoscopy group (0.8 vs. 2.5 days, p = 0.005). The 30-day-mortality in the thoracoscopy group was zero, whereas five patients died in the non-thoracoscopy group. Furthermore, four patients in the non-thoracoscopy group had encountered haemothorax, while none were observed in the thoracoscopy group (p = 0.148).

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy during laser-guided lead extraction of cardiac implantable electronic devices can be considered safe and does not lengthen the operating time or hospital stay. It might be useful in the detection of severe complications and, in experienced hands, possibly allow direct bleeding control.

A 37-Year-Old Woman with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with a Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Requiring Percutaneous Transvenous Lead Extraction and Multidisciplinary Management

Patient: Female, 37-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Symptoms: None

Medication:—

Clinical Procedure: Percutaneous ICD lead extraction • Surgical ICD lead extraction

Specialty: Cardiac Electrophysiology • Cardiac Surgery • Cardiology

Transvenous Lead Extraction without Procedure-Related Deaths in 1000 Consecutive Patients: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is now a first-line technique for the treatment of complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of the study was to demonstrate that it is possible to safely perform difficult TLE procedures with a maximum reduction of peri-procedural major complications.

Methods

A total of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center from 2016 to 2019 were studied. All procedures were performed in a hybrid room or operating room by a specialized TLE team. TLE was performed under general anesthesia and monitored by transesophageal echocardiography, and the operating room was suitably equipped for immediate surgical intervention. The effectiveness and safety of the procedures were assessed, with particular emphasis on major complications.

Results

In all, 1952 leads with the mean implant duration of 111.7 ± 77.6 months had been extracted. Complete procedural success of patients was achieved in 95.9% and clinical success in 99.1%. Major complications, predominantly cardiac tamponade (63.3%), occurred in 22 patients (2.2%). Rapid diagnosis and immediate intervention were the key to a 100% survival in patients with this complication.

Conclusion

Performing procedures in a hybrid operating room under general anesthesia in the presence of a cardiac surgeon and with the use of transesophageal echocardiography significantly improves the safety of transvenous lead extraction.

Transvenous lead extraction: The influence of age on patient outcomes in the PROMET study cohort

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy contributes to an improvement in morbidity and mortality across all patient demographics. Patient age is a recognized risk factor for unfavorable outcomes in invasive procedures. This is the largest series of non-laser transvenous lead extraction (TLE) evaluating the association between patient age and procedure outcomes.

METHODS

Data of 2205 (3849 leads) patients was collected retrospectively from six European TLE centers between January 2005-December 2018 in the PROMET study. Of these, 153 patients with 319 leads were excluded for incomplete data. A comparison of outcomes was performed between the age groups young [< 50 years], young intermediate [50-69 years], older intermediate [70-79 years], and octogenarian [≥80 years].

RESULTS

Infection was most common indication for TLE in the octogenarian cohort, less common in the younger population (60.1% vs. 33.2%, respectively, p < .01). High-voltage leads were extracted most frequently from young patients, less frequently from octogenarians (31.6% vs. 10%, p < .001), while the opposite was evident for pacemaker leads (p < .001). Rotational sheath use was equally prevalent across all patient groups (p = .79). Minor and major complications across all the age groups were statistically similar, as was procedural success; the 30-day mortality was most significant in the octogenarian and least in the young patients (4.9% vs. 0.4%, p = .005). Propensity matching multivariate analysis found systemic infection, lead dwell time, and patient age (p = .013, OR 1.064 [1.013-1.116]) increased risk of 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

TLE is safe and effective across all age groups. 30-day mortality risk is significantly higher in the older patients.

Transvenous lead extraction on uninterrupted anticoagulation: A safe approach?

Introduction

Current guidelines advocate reviewing peri-procedural anticoagulation on individual case basis for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We investigated the safety of TLE on uninterrupted warfarin with therapeutic INR.

Methods

Retrospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing TLE on uninterrupted warfarin (Warfarin Group) across two centres. Age and sex matched controls not on anticoagulation (No-Warfarin Group) and undergoing TLE over the same time-period were included. Both groups were compared over one-year.

Results

121 TLEs over 18-months. 22 patients on uninterrupted anticoagulation were compared to 22 controls. Groups were well matched for baseline demographics other than INR. Warfarin group had mean INR of 2.2 ± 0.6 (range 2–3.5). Primary end point was procedural safety and efficacy. Amongst cases, 43/45 (96%) leads were removed in their entirety compared to 37/40 (93%) in controls (p = 0.66). In the cases, these included 44% defibrillator, 47% pace-sense and 9% CS leads of average duration 7yrs. There was no reported tamponade, haemothorax or procedural mortality in either group. One patient amongst cases required inotropic support while two patients amongst controls had device-site haematomas. No significant difference reported in Hb drop post-procedure or overall complication rate between the groups (p = 0.11,0.32). Cox regression showed a significant association between procedural success and device infection, number of leads extracted, serum creatinine (p = 0.03, 0.04, 0.02). Over a 1-year follow-up, there was lead displacement in one case and one control had infection of the re-implanted device.

Conclusion

TLE can be carried out safely in anticoagulated patients with therapeutic INRs. Larger multicentre studies are required to confirm these findings.

Clinical impact of antithrombotic therapy in transvenous lead extraction complications: a sub-analysis from the ESC-EORP EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) Registry

AIMS

A sub-analysis of the ESC-EHRA European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) Registry to evaluate the clinical impact of antithrombotic (AT) on transvenous lead extraction (TLE) safety and efficacy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ELECTRa outcomes were compared between patients without AT therapy (No AT Group) and with different pre-operative AT regimens, including antiplatelets (AP), anticoagulants (AC), or both (AP + AC). Out of 3510 pts, 2398 (68%) were under AT pre-operatively. AT patients were older with more comorbidities (P < 0.0001). AT subgroups, defined as AP, AC, or AP + AC, were 1096 (31.2%), 985 (28%), and 317 (9%), respectively. Regarding AP patients, 1413 (40%) were under AP, 1292 (91%) with a single AP, interrupted in 26% about 3.8 ± 3.7 days before TLE. In total, 1302 (37%) patients were under AC, 881 vitamin K antagonist (68%), 221 (17%) direct oral anticoagulants, 155 (12%) low weight molecular heparin, and 45 (3.5%) unfractionated heparin. AC was 'interrupted without bridging' in 696 (54%) and 'interrupted with bridging' in 504 (39%) about 3.3 ± 2.3 days before TLE, and 'continued' in 87 (7%). TLE success rate was high in all subgroups. Only overall in-hospital death (1.4%), but not the procedure-related one, was higher in the AT subgroups (P = 0.0500). Age >65 years and New York Heart Association Class III/IV, but not AT regimens, were independent predictors of death for any cause. Haematomas were more frequent in AT subgroups, especially in AC 'continued' (P = 0.025), whereas pulmonary embolism in the No-AT (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

AT minimization is safe in patients undergoing TLE. AT does not seem to predict death but identifies a subset of fragile patients with a worse in-hospital TLE outcome.

Cardiac implantable electronic device infection: Does the device need to be extracted?

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) have become a common treatment modality in clinical practice. The increase in utilization of these devices has been associated with an increase in infection rates. Published guidelines define when a device is deemed infected (CDI); recommendations for the work‐up of CDI and criteria for extraction. Few data exist as to adherence to these guidelines.

Objective

We wanted to o evaluate whether devices diagnosed as CDI fit guidelines, whether clinicians followed work‐up recommendation of CDI, and whether CIED was extracted according to the guidelines criteria in our hospital.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed in our hospital between 2008 and 2017. Adult patients (pts) 18 years and older who had their device extracted (DE) with a diagnosis of CDI were included. A total of 95 pts were identified.

Results

We included 95 pts who were diagnosed as having CDI and who had their DE. Work‐up of patients with a diagnosis of CDI was inconsistently followed. Blood cultures, Echocardiogram, lead cultures (LC), and device pocket cultures (PC) were done in 100%, 90.5%, 75.6%, and 49.3%, respectively. Thirty out of 90 pts. (33%) did not meet guidelines criteria for extraction.

Conclusions

In our institution, a one third of the pts diagnosed with CDI who had DE had no indication for DE per guidelines recommendations. Clinicians did not follow recommendations for work‐up of CDI consistently. Low adherence was seen in obtaining LC and PC. CIED extraction guidelines should be followed to prevent unnecessary complications and cost.

Transfemoral extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads using Needle's Eye Snare: a single-center experience of more than 900 leads

The femoral approach with the Needle's Eye Snare (NES) is often used for bailout after failure of the superior approach for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). The safety and efficacy of the NES as a first-line tool for TLE remain unclear. The medical records of patients who underwent TLE via the femoral approach utilizing the NES from May 2014 to June 2019 in Peking University People's Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Nine hundred and eighty-five leads were extracted in 492 patients (369 men; mean age 72.8 ± 29.0 years). The median (range) number of leads extracted per patient was 2 (1-6). The mean indwelling time of all extracted leads was 112.6 ± 52.0 months. The complete procedure success rate, clinical success rate, and failure rate were 94.1% (463/492), 97.8% (481/492), and 1.1% (11/492), respectively. Major complications including death occurred in nine patients (1.9%), of whom eight developed cardiac tamponade. Among these eight patients, emergency pericardiocentesis followed by rescue surgical repair if necessary was successful in 6 (75.0%) and failed in 2 (25.0%). No significant differences were found in the clinical success rate or major complications rate between patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or between patients with infected and uninfected leads. A femoral approach with the NES is safe and effective for TLE of both pacing and defibrillator leads and could be considered a first-line approach. Cardiac tamponade was the most frequent cardiovascular complication. A strategy of emergency pericardiocentesis followed by a rescue surgical approach seems to be reasonable technique to treat a cardiac tamponade.

Transvenous lead extraction with laser reduces need for femoral approach during the procedure

Introduction

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) trans venous lead extraction (TLE) is technically challenging. Whether the use of a laser sheath reduces complications and improves outcomes is still in debate. We therefore aimed at comparing our experience with and without laser in a large referral center.

Methods

Information of all patients undergoing TLE was collected prospectively. We retrospectively compared procedural outcomes prior to the introduction of the laser sheath lead extraction technique to use of laser sheath.

Results

During the years 2007–2017, there were 850 attempted lead removals in 407 pts. Of them, 339 (83%) were extracted due to infection, device upgrade/lead malfunction in 42 (10%) cases, and other (7%). Complete removal (radiological success) of all leads was achieved in (88%). Partial removal was achieved in another 6% of the patients. Comparison of cases prior to and after laser technique introduction, showed that with laser, a significantly smaller proportion of cases required conversion to femoral approach [31/275 (6%) laser vs. 40/132 (15%) non-laser; p<0.001]. However, success rates of removal [259/275 (94%) vs. 124/132 (94%) respectively; p = 0.83] and total complication rates [35 (13%) vs. 19 (14%) respectively; p = 0.86] did not differ prior to and after laser use. In multivariate analysis, laser-assisted extraction was an independent predictor for no need for femoral extraction (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.23–0.69; p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Introduction of laser lead removal resulted in decreased need to convert to femoral approach, albeit without improving success rates or preventing major complications.

Management of cardiac implantable devices in patients undergoing radiotherapy

The delivery of radiotherapy to patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is not an infrequent event. Consideration of the potential issues for patients is an important part of their care. An overview of CIEDs is provided, including the potential problems encountered and the steps that can be taken to mitigate this risk.

Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has continued to rise along with indications for their removal. When confronted with challenging clinical scenarios such as device infection, malfunction or vessel occlusion, patients often require the prompt removal of CIED hardware, including associated leads. Recent advancements in percutaneous methods have enabled physicians to face a myriad of complex lead extractions with efficiency and safety. Looking ahead, emerging technologies hold great promise in making extractions safer and more accessible for patients worldwide. This review will provide the most up-to-date indications and procedural approaches for lead extractions and insight on the future trends in this novel field.

Right-sided infective endocarditis in cardiac device carriers: Clinical profile and prognosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Due to the widespread indications for device implants and the population aging, right-sided infective endocarditis (RSIE) epidemiology has dramatically changed, being nowadays, cardiac device carriers the main affected group. The aim of this work is to describe the epidemiology, clinical profile and outcomes of RSIE in cardiac device carriers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included definitive infective endocarditis episodes consecutively diagnosed in 3 tertiary centers from March 1995 to September 2014. A retrospective analysis of 85 variables, one-year follow up and univariate analysis of in-hospital mortality was conducted.

RESULTS

Among 1,182 episodes, 100 cardiac device carriers presented with RSIE (8.5%). Mean age±SD was 67±14 years. Staphylococcus spp. were the main causative microorganisms (coagulase-negative 44%, aureus 31%) and 37% were methicillin-resistant. Cardiac devices were removed in 95% of patients. In-hospital mortality was 8% and one-year mortality was 4%. Univariate analysis demonstrated that renal failure at admission (OR 6.2; 95% CI 1.3-30.3), septic shock (OR 8.9; 95% CI 1.7-47.9) and persistent infection during clinical course (OR 19.4; 95% CI 3-125.7) increase in-hospital mortality while device removal is a protective factor (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

RSIE have low in-hospital and one-year mortality. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci is responsible of almost half of the episodes and methicillin-resistant incidence is high. Device removal is mandatory since it decreases in-hospital mortality.

Characterization of a previously unrecognized clinical phenomenon: Delayed shock after cardiac implantable electronic device extraction

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction remains a challenging procedure with inherent risk and associated complications.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize and evaluate predictors of delayed shock after transvenous lead extraction with no intraprocedural complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of 217 consecutive patients who underwent extraction between 2010 and 2015. The primary end point was sudden onset of shock more than 4 hours after the completion of the procedure. Shock was defined as at least 30 minutes of persistent hypotension, necessitating vasopressors. Patients with mechanical or hemorrhagic shock were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (9%) developed delayed shock during the first 24 hours. Reasons for shock were sepsis (47%) or no apparent cause (53%). In multivariate analysis, patients with delayed shock had significantly lower glomerular filtration rate (median estimated glomerular filtration rate 53 mL/min vs 73 mL/min; P = .001), had more signs of systemic infection before extraction (fever, bacteremia, and leukocytosis; P < .05), and had more lead/tip remnants (29% vs 3%; P < .001). Patients presenting with delayed shock had significantly higher mortality rates at 1-year follow-up (10 [59%] vs 40 [23%], respectively; P < .01). Multivariate analysis adjusted for 1-year mortality risk was 114% higher (hazard ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval 1.02-4.47; P < .05) in patients presenting with delayed shock.

CONCLUSION

We describe a previously unrecognized clinical phenomenon of delayed shock developing after extraction. Patients with predictors of this condition at baseline should be identified and followed up closely. Even with prompt treatment, long-term mortality rates remain high.

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

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

Lead Extraction for Treatment of Cardiac Device Infection: A 20-Year Single Centre Experience

BACKGROUND

Infection is one of the most feared complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices. We report microbiology, antimicrobial therapy and infection recurrence in patients with cardiac device infection (CDI) treated with transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a single centre over a 20-year period.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of consecutive patients undergoing TLE for CDI by a single operator at a single high volume centre. Retrospective analysis of patient characteristics, microbiology, outcomes and infection recurrence was performed.

RESULTS

Between May 1992 to March 2012, 348 patients underwent extraction due to localised or systemic infection. Seven hundred and twenty leads were extracted from these patients. The mean follow-up was 5.5+/-4.9 years. Staphylococcal species accounted for 81% of CDI. A difference is seen in infection onset for device revision compared with initial implants [median 10 months vs 24 months, P=0.0001]. Duration of antibiotics therapy depended on the nature of the CDI (21 days post TLE for systemic vs. 10 days for localised infection, P < 0.0001). There was comparable mortality in the 37 (11.2%) patients who did not have a replacement device compared with a replacement (30% vs 29%, P=0.9). Retained lead fragments are a risk factor for CDI recurrence (20.8% recurrence in retained fragments vs 4.3% in complete removal, P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Cardiac device infection can be successfully treated with a combination of TLE and antibiotic therapy. Device therapy can be safely withdrawn in some patients. Retained lead fragments are a risk factor for recurrent CDI following extraction.

Right Ventricular Anatomy Can Accommodate Multiple Micra Transcatheter Pacemakers

BACKGROUND

The introduction of transcatheter pacemaker technology has the potential to significantly reduce if not eliminate a number of complications associated with a traditional leaded pacing system. However, this technology raises new questions regarding how to manage the device at end of service, the number of devices the right ventricle (RV) can accommodate, and what patient age is appropriate for this therapy. In this study, six human cadaver hearts and one reanimated human heart (not deemed viable for transplant) were each implanted with three Micra devices in traditional pacing locations via fluoroscopic imaging.

METHODS

A total of six human cadaver hearts were obtained from the University of Minnesota Anatomy Bequest Program; the seventh heart was a heart not deemed viable for transplant obtained from LifeSource and then reanimated using Visible Heart(®) methodologies. Each heart was implanted with multiple Micras using imaging and proper delivery tools; in these, the right ventricular volumes were measured and recorded. The hearts were subsequently dissected to view the right ventricular anatomies and the positions and spacing between devices.

RESULTS

Multiple Micra devices could be placed in each heart in traditional, clinically accepted pacing implant locations within the RV and in each case without physical device interactions. This was true even in a human heart considered to be relatively small.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this technology is new, it was demonstrated here that within the human heart's RV, three Micra devices could be accommodated within traditional pacing locations: with the potential in some, for even more.

Transvenous Lead Extraction via the Inferior Approach Using a Gooseneck Snare versus Simple Manual Traction

Background and Objectives

The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices needing lead extraction is increasing for various reasons, including infections, vascular obstruction, and lead failure. We report our experience with transvenous extraction of pacemaker and defibrillator leads via the inferior approach of using a gooseneck snare as a first-line therapy and compare extraction using a gooseneck snare with extraction using simple manual traction.

Subjects and Methods

The study included 23 consecutive patients (43 leads) who underwent transvenous lead extraction using a gooseneck snare (group A) and 10 consecutive patients (17 leads) who underwent lead extraction using simple manual traction (group B). Patient characteristics, indications, and outcomes were analyzed and compared between the groups.

Results

The dwelling time of the leads was longer in group A (median, 121) than in group B (median, 56; p=0.000). No differences were noted in the overall procedural success rate (69.6% vs. 70%), clinical procedural success rate (82.6% vs. 90%), and lead clinical success rate (86% vs. 94.1%) between the groups. The procedural success rates according to lead type were 89.2% and 100% for pacing leads and 66.7% and 83.3% for defibrillator leads in groups A and B, respectively. Major complications were noted in 3 (mortality in 1) patients in group A and 2 patients in group B.

Conclusion

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker leads via an inferior approach using a gooseneck snare was both safe and effective. However, stand-alone transvenous extraction of defibrillator leads using the inferior approach was suboptimal.

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.