Technical Features and Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Venous Left Ventricular Lead Removal and Reimplantation

BACKGROUND

The number of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy has increased. Consequently, there is increased frequency in the removal and reimplantation of coronary venous (CV) leads due to infection or malfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 345 consecutive patients referred for lead(s) extraction were reviewed. Of these, 34 patients who underwent a CV lead removal were investigated. The indications for CV leads removal were device-related infections in 29 patients and lead malfunctions in 5 patients. The average duration of the CV leads was 4.1±3.8 years. All CV leads were successfully removed without any major complications, except for 1 in-hospital death. Successful CV lead removal by simple traction (ST) was achieved in 21 patients (62%), whereas extraction tools were required in 13 patients (38%). Local infection and CV lead dwell time were significantly associated with successful ST (P=0.04 and P=0.014, respectively). CV lead re-implantation was successfully performed in 25 patients; however, a right-side approach was required in 92%, and occlusion/stenosis of the previous CV was observed in 80% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CV lead removal is relatively successful and safe. The presence of local infection and a shorter lead duration may enable successful ST of a CV lead. However, the re-implantation procedure should be well prepared for the complexity related to the right-side approach and occlusion/stenosis of the previous CV.

Incidence of device-related infection in 97 750 patients: clinical data from the complete Danish device-cohort (1982-2018)

AIMS

Device-related infection (DRI) is a severe complication to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) therapy. Device-related infection incidence and its risk factors differ between previous studies. We aimed to define the long-term incidence and incidence rates of DRI for different types of CIEDs in the complete Danish device-cohort and identify patient-, operation- and device-related risk factors for DRI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From the Danish Pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) Register, we included consecutive Danish patients undergoing CIED implantation or reoperation from January 1982 to April 2018, resulting in 97 750 patients, 128 045 operations and follow-up of in total 566 275 device years (DY). We identified 1827 DRI causing device removals. Device-related infection incidence during device lifetime was 1.19% (1.12-1.26) for PM, 1.91% (1.71-2.13) for ICD, 2.18% (1.78-2.64) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-pacemakers (CRT-P), and 3.35% (2.92-3.83) for CRT-defibrillators (CRT-D). Incidence rates in de novo implantations were 2.04/1000 DY for PM, 3.84 for ICD, 4.38 for CRT-P, and 6.76 for CRT-D. Using multiple-record and multiple-event per subject proportional hazard analysis, we identified implantation of complex devices (ICD and CRT), reoperations, prior DRI, male sex, and younger age as significantly associated with higher DRI risk.

CONCLUSION

Overall risk of infection was low in PM implantations but considerably higher in CRT systems and after reinterventions. These data support the importance of evaluating all patients considered for CIED therapy thoroughly, in order to identify potential modifiable risk factors and reduce the risk of early reoperations.

Device complications with addition of defibrillation to cardiac resynchronisation therapy for primary prevention

OBJECTIVE

In patients indicated for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), the choice between a CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) versus defibrillator (CRT-D) remains controversial and indications in this setting have not been well delineated. Apart from inappropriate therapies, which are inherent to the presence of a defibrillator, whether adding defibrillator to CRT in the primary prevention setting impacts risk of other acute and late device-related complications has not been well studied and may bear relevance for device selection.

METHODS

Observational multicentre European cohort study of 3008 consecutive patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, undergoing CRT implantation with (CRT-D, n=1785) or without (CRT-P, n=1223) defibrillator. Using propensity score and competing risk analyses, we assessed the risk of significant device-related complications requiring surgical reintervention. Inappropriate shocks were not considered except those due to lead malfunction requiring lead revision.

RESULTS

Acute complications occurred in 148 patients (4.9%), without significant difference between groups, even after considering potential confounders (OR=1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.00, p=0.47). During a mean follow-up of 41.4±29 months, late complications occurred in 475 patients, giving an annual incidence rate of 26 (95% CI 9 to 43) and 15 (95% CI 6 to 24) per 1000 patient-years in CRT-D and CRT-P patients, respectively. CRT-D was independently associated with increased occurrence of late complications (HR=1.68, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.23, p=0.001). In particular, when compared with CRT-P, CRT-D was associated with an increased risk of device-related infection (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.45, p=0.004). Acute complications did not predict overall late complications, but predicted device-related infection (HR 2.85, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.56, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CRT-P, CRT-D is associated with a similar risk of periprocedural complications but increased risk of long-term complications, mainly infection. This needs to be considered in the decision of implanting CRT with or without a defibrillator.

Repeated procedures at the generator pocket are a determinant of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection

BACKGROUND

Rates of cardiac-device infections have increased in recent years, but the current incidence and risk factors for infection in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are not well known.

HYPOTHESIS

The increasing number of ICD infections is related to accumulated pocket manipulations over time.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective study included patients that underwent ICD implantation from 2008 to 2015. The endpoint was time to infection. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors related to infection.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 570 patients, of whom 419 (73.5%) underwent a first implantation. Mean age was 59 ± 14 years, and 80% were male. During a median follow-up of 36 months (interquartile range, 18-61 months; 1887 patient-years), infection was identified in 26 patients (4.56%), an incidence of 14.9 × 1000 patient-years. Median time to infection was 9.7 months (interquartile range, 1.35-23.4 months), and 38.5% were late infections (beyond 12 months of follow-up). In patients with replacement implants, the incidence was 3-fold higher than in first implantations (27.7 vs 9.1 × 1000 patient-years; P = 0.002). Cox regression identified 2 independent predictors of ICD infection: cumulative number of interventions at the generator pocket (hazard ratio: 1.92, 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.6, P < 0.001) and pocket hematoma (hazard ratio: 7.0, 95% confidence interval: 2.7-17.9, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of infection in ICD patients is greater than previously reported, largely due to late infections. Each new cumulative intervention at the same generator pocket nearly doubles the risk of infection.

Management of Cardiac Electronic Device Infections: Challenges and Outcomes

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is an increasing problem. Reasons for this are uncertain, but likely relate to an increasing proportion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices implanted, as well as implantations in 'higher risk' candidates, i.e. patients with heart failure, diabetes and renal failure. Challenges within the field of CIED infections are multiple with prevention being the most important challenge. Careful prescription of CIED treatment and careful patient preparation before implantation is important. Diagnosis is often difficult and delayed by subtle signs of infection. Treatment of CIED infection includes complete system removal in centres experienced in CIED extraction and prolonged antibiotic therapy. Meticulous planning and preparation before system extraction and later CIED re-implantation is essential for better patient outcome. Future strategies for reducing CIED infection should be tested in sufficiently powered, multicentre, randomised controlled trials.

Bundled preparation of skin antisepsis decreases the risk of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infection

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of bundled skin antiseptic preparation to prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2010 to November 2013, 665 consecutive patients were divided into two groups according to the strategy of skin preparation. In Period 1 (January 2010 to June 2012), 395 patients received the standard skin antiseptic preparation. In Period 2 (July 2012 to November 2013), 270 patients received a triple-step skin antiseptic preparation, 'bundled skin antiseptic preparation', consisting of applying 75% alcohol over anterior chest on the night before the index day, povidone-iodine 10 min before operation, and the standard skin antiseptic preparation before incision. During follow-up, the occurrence of CIED infection was recorded. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determinate the risk factors of CIED infection. During a mean follow-up of 26.9 ± 16.2 months, 20 episodes of CIED infection developed in 19 patients (2.9%), and the incidence of minor and major infection episodes was 2.2% and 0.8%, respectively. Patients with the bundled skin antiseptic preparation had a significantly lower incidence of CIED infection, compared with patients with the standard preparation (0.7 vs. 4.3%, P = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, pocket haematoma (P = 0.020), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.033), and complex procedures (P = 0.047) were independent predictors for CIED infection. In contrast, the bundled skin antiseptic preparation was a significant predictor against CIED infection (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Pocket haematoma was the most important risk factor for CIED infection. The bundled skin antiseptic preparation strategy significantly reduced the risk of minor CIED infection.