Safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction of very old leads

Percutaneous Extraction of Transvenous Permanent Pacemaker/Defibrillator Leads-A Single-Center Experience

Background and Objectives: The number of cardiac pacemakers being used has increased in recent decades, and this increase has led to a rise in device-related complications, requiring percutaneous device extraction. Our aim was to present our single-center clinical experience in percutaneous lead extractions. Materials and Methods: We analyzed an observational retrospective cohort study of 93 patients for the transvenous removal of a total of 163 endocardial leads. We evaluated the device details, indications, lead characteristics, extraction methods, complications, reimplantation procedure, follow-up data, effectiveness, and safety. Results: Patients' mean age was 68.6 ± 11.6 years. Lead extraction indications were pocket infection in 33 (35.5%), lead dysfunction in 33 (35.5%), and system upgrade in 21 (23%) cases, and lead endocarditis in 6 (6%) cases. The duration from implantation to extraction time was a detected median of 43 (24-87) months. The most common retracted lead type was the RV defibrillator lead (62%), and the lead fixation type was active for one hundred (61%) patients. A new device was inserted in 74 (80%) patients, and the device type was most commonly a CRT-D (61%). Patients were followed up at a median of 17 (8-36) months, and 18 patients (19%) died at follow-up. Complete procedural success was obtained in 78 (84%) patients, and clinical procedural success was obtained in 83 (89%) patients. Procedural failure was detected in 15 (16%) patients. Major and minor complications were detected in 10 (11%) and 6 (6.5%) patients, respectively. The most common minor complication was pocket hematoma. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that transvenous lead extraction has a high success rate with an acceptable risk of procedural complications. The simple manual traction method has a high rate of procedural success, despite a high dwell time of the lead.

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

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

Out with the old: Single center experience with transvenous extraction of leads older than 15 years

BACKGROUND

Lead dwell time is the single strongest predictor of failure and complications in transvenous lead extraction.

OBJECTIVES

To report the success rate and complications of transvenous lead extractions with implant dwell time of at least 15 years.

METHODS

Procedural and patient data were prospectively collected into a database. The excimer laser was the primary method for lead extraction with the use of mechanical rotational sheaths and femoral snares at operator discretion.

RESULTS

A total of 442 patients between 2011 and 2020 underwent lead extraction (705 leads) primarily for infection or device failure at our high-volume center. Forty-one patients with 71 leads > 15 years old were included in this cohort. Mean patient age was 53.5 ± 18.5 years, 67.5% were male. Mean lead dwell time was 19.6 ± 4.4 years. Thirty-six of 41 (88%) patients had successful extraction of all leads compared to 96% in the remaining 401 patients, p value.004. Of the five patients without fully successful extractions two of these patients had abandoned leads (three total) that were clinically significant. There were two (4.9%) major complications in the very old lead group and six (1.5%) in the other group. In the very old lead group, one patient experienced right atrial appendage perforation requiring surgical repair and recovered well. One patient experienced new complete heart block requiring 2 min of CPR but did well thereafter. There was no procedure-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite challenges posed by older leads, very old leads can be safely and effectively extracted with low complication rates.

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.

Discussing the Prognosis and Complications of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED): A Systematic Review

An increase in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and undoubtedly the complications brought on by these devices coincide with an increase in cardiovascular disorders, particularly heart rhythm abnormalities. The safest procedure to extract these devices is transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Thus, this systematic review aimed to summarize the possibility of success rates and the common complications that could arise during the surgery. Full-text publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and ScienceDirect were used in this study, which was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventeen studies were reviewed for this systematic review after being screened by title, abstract, full-text availability, and quality appraisal assessment. Heart and vascular tears, along with tricuspid regurgitation (TR), are common adverse events. Pulmonary embolism, hemothorax, hemopericardium, and ghost appearance in echo are less common consequences. In addition, the longer the dwelling time of the leads, the greater the chance of infection due to an increase in lead adhesions and fibrous tissue that has made the procedure unsafe as time passes. However, we concluded that TLE is a successful method across all age groups with an excellent probability of clinical and procedural success in a majority of studies.

Transvenous Lead Extraction of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Reimplant Strategy and Outcomes in a Single-Center Experience

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are now widely used worldwide and the numbers are increasing exponentially. Subsequently, long-term complications have increased. Transvenous lead-extraction (TLE) is the gold standard for removing infected devices, treating systemic device-related infections including endocarditis, and removing devices for other non-infectious complications. Most patients still require device therapy after TLE for several indications, including lifesaving defibrillation or pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients. The decision to reimplant is challenging, particularly when the primary cause for device removal includes device-related infections and patients frequently are pacemaker dependent. We aim to present our strategy for reimplanting after performing TLE in 88 consecutive patients. We performed transvenous removal of 150 pacemaker and defibrillator leads, of which 74% for local or systemic infection. We report a 99.3% clinical success after TLE. Out of 88 patients who had undergone TLE and after reanalysing the device indication, 67 patients (76%) still had indication for device removal, but three of them refused to undergo reimplant and 58 were re-implanted. Of the re-implanted patients, 58.6% were implanted on the contra-lateral side, 38% on the ipsilateral side and two patients who had been previously implanted with ICD were reimplanted with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). Up to 34.4% of patients were re-implanted during the same TLE procedure, which was performed for device up-grade in patients with venous occlusion, 24% were implanted during the same hospital admission for TLE but not during TLE, and 41.3% were discharged and reimplanted afterwards. With this strategy for reimplantation, we report no re-infections and no device-removal-related arrhythmic major events or deaths during one-year follow-up. In conclusion, most patients still require device therapy after TLE. In patients with previous infection of the device, the reimplantation strategy should be carefully analyzed to prevent infection relapse and limit the consequences of the absence of the device.

Utility of a multipurpose catheter for transvenous extraction of old broken leads: A novel technique for fragile leads

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction has been possible since the 1980s. However, complications during lead extraction, such as the distal end fragment of the lead remaining in the myocardium or venous system and injury to the veins or heart, have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine our method for complete removal of a separated lead, as extraction of long-term implanted devices is difficult using standard methods and may require additional procedures. The removal of leads with inner conductor coil and lead tip separated from outer insulation, conductor coil, and proximal ring electrode using a multipurpose catheter is reported.

METHODS

In total, 345 consecutive patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) from April 2014 to March 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Lead characteristics, device type, and indications for extraction were further analyzed in 20 patients who developed separation of the proximal ring electrode and outer conductor coil from the inner conductor and distal tip at the time of extraction.

RESULTS

Extractions were performed using an excimer laser sheath laser and a Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath (n = 15); laser, Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath, and Evolution RL (n = 2); laser and Evolution RL (n = 3); Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath and Evolution RL (n = 1); Byrd polypropylene telescoping sheath only (n = 4); and Evolution RL only (n = 2). Twenty-seven leads implanted for more than 10 years had lead separation. A multipurpose catheter was used to protect the fragile leads from further damage. All leads were completely extracted.

CONCLUSION

All distal tip-to-proximal ring electrode separated leads were successfully removed using laser and other sheaths with the assistance of a multipurpose catheter, without any part of the leads remaining in the heart.

Recurrent Transient Ischemic Attacks in a Patient with Multiple Pacemaker Leads

Venous complications-specifically, stenosis and thrombosis-are both well-known complications of transvenous implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators. Although they are a well-recognized phenomenon, these complications are rarely of clinical significance. One of the most concerning complications is the development of superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome. Studies have found that the incidence of SVC syndrome varies from 1 in 3,100 to 1 in 650 patients. The azygos-hemiazygos venous system is the most commonly observed collateral. We report a case of a 71-year-old female patient who presented with stroke-like symptoms during the injection of agitated saline bubbles while performing an echo and was found to have an unusual venous collateral circulation formed as a result of brachiocephalic and SVC obstruction from multiple pacemaker leads. Our patient's clinical presentation was extremely unique, and we did not find any cases during our literature search reporting a similar presentation. Multiple collaterals formed between the brachiocephalic and subclavian veins, and bilateral pulmonary veins in our patient allowed the injected air bubbles from the venous system to reach the left side of the heart and eventually the cerebrovascular system, resulting in these transient ischemic attacks. These attacks eventually resolved as the air bubbles were dissolved and washed away by the continuous blood flow. It is advisable to monitor the patient for possible venous stenosis and SVC syndrome after any device insertion during regular device follow-up appointments.

Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction of very old leads using bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths: Results of a multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Lead dwell time >10 years is a recognized predictor for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) failure and complications. Data on the efficacy and safety of TLE using the bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths in patients with very old leads are lacking. In this multicenter study, we reported the outcomes of transvenous rotational mechanical lead extraction in patients with leads implanted for ≥10 years.

METHODS

A total of 441 leads (median: 159 months [135-197]; range: 120-487) in 189 consecutive patients were removed with the Evolution RL sheaths (Cook Medical, Bloomingtom, IN, USA) and mechanical ancillary tools supporting the procedures.

RESULTS

The main indication for TLE was infection in 74% of cases. Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, per lead were 94.8% and 98.2%, respectively. Failure of lead extraction was seen in 1.8% of leads. The additional use of a snare via the femoral approach was required in 9% of patients. Lead dwell time was the only predictor of incomplete led removal (odds ratio: 1.009; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.003-1.014; p = .002). Four major complication (2%) were encountered. During a mean time follow-up of 31 ± 27 months, 21 patients (11%) died. No procedure-related mortality occurred. Predictors of mortality included severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR]: 8.06; 95% CI: 2.99-21.73; p = .001), TLE for infection (HR: 8.0; 95% CI: 1.04-62.5; p = .045), diabetes (HR: 3.7; 95% CI: 1.48-9.5; p = .005), and previous systemic infection (HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.17-8.24; p = .022). Incomplete lead removal or failure lead extraction did not impact on survival during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the use of bidirectional rotational TLE mechanical sheaths combined with different mechanical tools and femoral approach allows reasonable success and safety in patients with very old leads at experienced specialized centers.

Mechanical extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads with a dwell time of more than 10 years: insights from a single high-volume centre

AIMS

To analyze and compare the effectiveness and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads with a dwell time of >10 years (Group A) vs. younger leads (Group B) using mechanical extraction systems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between October 2011 and July 2022, we performed TLE in 318 patients. Forty-six (14.4%) extracted ICD leads in 46 (14.5%) patients that had been implanted for >10 years. The median dwell time of all extracted ICD leads was 5.9 years. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 31.8% of patients. Complete ICD leads removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (95.7% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056% and 95.6% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056, respectively). We did not find a significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (6.5% in Group A vs. 1.5% in Group B and 2.2% in Group A vs. 1.8% in Group B, P = 0.082, respectively). One death associated with the TLE procedure was recorded in Group B.

CONCLUSION

The TLE procedures involving the extraction of old ICD leads were effective and safe. The outcomes of ICD lead removal with a dwell time of >10 years did not differ significantly compared with younger ICD leads. However, extraction of older ICD leads required more frequent necessity for utilizing multiple extraction tools, more experience and versatility of the operator, and increased surgery costs.

Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Leads Older Than 20 and 30 Years-A Large Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is limited knowledge on outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of leads being 20 and 30 years old.

METHODS

Retrospective single center large database analysis containing 3673 TLE procedures performed from 2006 to 2020 was analysed. We aimed to compare procedure complexity and the incidence of the TLE major complications (MC) in groups where extracted leads were under 10 years, 10-20 years, 20-30 years (old) and over 30 years (very old).

RESULTS

Rate of removal of old and very old leads almost doubles with successive five-year periods (3-6-10%). In patients with old and very old leads there is an accumulation of risk factors for major complications of TLE (young age, female, multiple and/or abandoned leads, multiple previous procedures). The removal of old and very old leads was more labour-consuming, more difficult, and much more often required second-line (advanced) tools and complex techniques. Incidence of all MC grew parallel to age of removed leads from 0.6 to 18.2%; haemopericardium-from 0.3 to 12.1%, severe tricuspid valve damage-from 0.2 to 2.1%, need for rescue cardiac surgery-from 0.4 to 9.1%. Notably, there was no procedure-related death when old or very old lead was extracted. The percentages of clinical and procedural success decreased with increasing age of the removed leads from 99.2 and 97.8% to 90.9 and 81.8%. The risk of MC during extraction of leads aged 10-20 years increases 6.7 times, aged 20-30 years-14.3 times (amounting to 8.4%), and aged 30 and more years-20.4 times, amounting to 18.2%. Removal of ventricular leads is associated with a greater complexity of the procedure but not with more frequent MC. Removal of the atrial leads is associated with a higher incidence of MC, especially haemopericardium, regardless of the age of the leads, although the tendency becomes less pronounced with the oldest leads.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Extraction of old and very old leads is a rising challenge, since the rate of removal of leads aged 20-and-more years almost doubles with successive five-year periods. 2. Procedure difficulty, complexity and the risk of major complications increases along with the age of extracted lead. TLE is more time-consuming, difficult and much more often requires advanced tools and complex techniques. 3. TLE of old (≥20 years) or very old (≥30 years) leads can be performed with satisfactory success rate and safety profile when conducted at high-volume centre by an experienced operator under optimal safety conditions.

Usefulness of the controlled-rotation dilator sheath "Evolution RL" for extraction of old leads in two Japanese centers - An experience in use

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an established procedure for the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. However, some difficulties and risks of complications still exist, especially in old and adhered leads. Evolution RL (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) is a newly introduced device for TLE; however, no clinical results have been reported in Japan, and the results with older leads are unknown. We investigated the efficacy and safety of Evolution RL and its usefulness for old leads at two TLE centers in Japan.

METHODS

A total of 27 consecutive patients who underwent lead extraction using Evolution RL at Shinshu University Hospital and Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital from September 2017 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. We examined the backgrounds of the patients and leads and investigated the efficacy and safety of the procedures. We divided the leads into two groups according to the number of years of implantation (10 years) and compared the results.

RESULTS

Among the 27 patients, 20 (74.1%) were men, and the median age was 62 (14-91) years. The total number of leads was 58, and the median implantation duration was 136 months (8-448). We achieved clinical success in all patients and complete procedural success in 24 patients (88.9%). In three patients, the broken tip of the lead remained in the heart. No major complications were noted. Of the 58 leads, there were 34 leads with more than 10 years of implantation, with significantly more Evolution RLs used (94.1% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.001) and significantly higher percentages of Evolution 11Fr, 13Fr, and steady sheaths used (79.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.001, 52.9% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.006, and 64.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In two TLE centers in Japan, Evolution RL was shown to be safe and effective, even in leads older than 10 years.

Outcome of transvenous lead extraction of leads older than 20 years

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE), lead dwell time has been recognized as a risk factor for extraction failure and procedure-related complications.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with pacemaker or ICD leads with a dwell time of ≥20 years.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study of all patients who underwent TLE of at least 1 pacemaker or ICD leads a dwell time of ≥20 years.

RESULTS

During the study period, 124 patients were included in this analysis (50.8% female, mean age: 74.6 ± 10.7 years). Device-related infection was the most common (92.7%) indication for TLE. Extraction was attempted for a total 313 leads, of which 182 leads had dwell times ≥20 years (median: 276 months; interquartile range: 255-300 months). Complete procedural success was achieved in 112/124 patients (90.3%), and clinical success in 119/124 patients (96.0%). Complete removal was achieved for 294 leads (93.9%), partial removal in 10 leads, and failure in 9 leads. Clinical success (combined complete and partial success) rates were higher for leads with dwell times <20 years compared to older leads (99.2% vs. 95.6%, p = .017). Major procedural complications (including 1 death) occurred in 7/124 patients (5.6%). Minor complications were observed in 8 patients (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

TLE of very old (≥20 years) leads can be performed with reasonable success and safety when conducted at centers with expertise in lead management.

Analysis of Risk Factors for Major Complications of 1500 Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures with Especial Attention to Tricuspid Valve Damage

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a relatively safe procedure, but it may cause severe complications such as cardiac/vascular wall tear (CVWT) and tricuspid valve damage (TVD). Methods: The risk factors for CVWT and TVD were examined based on an analysis of data of 1500 extraction procedures performed in two high-volume centers. Results: The total number of major complications was 33 (2.2%) and included 22 (1.5%) CVWT and 12 (0.8%) TVD (with one case of combined complication). Patients with hemorrhagic complications were younger, more often women, less often presenting low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and those who received their first cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) earlier than the control group. A typical patient with CVWT was a pacemaker carrier, having more leads (including abandoned leads and excessive loops) with long implant duration and a history of multiple CIED-related procedures. The risk factors for TVD were similar to those for CVWT, but the patients were older and received their CIED about nine years earlier. Any form of tissue scar and technical problems were much more common in the two groups of patients with major complications. Conclusions: The risk factors for CVWT and TVD are similar, and the most important ones are related to long lead dwell time and its consequences for the heart (various forms of fibrotic scarring). The occurrence of procedural complications does not affect long-term survival in patients undergoing lead extraction.