Suppression of a demand pacemaker in the presence of redundant transvenous right ventricular leads

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.

A novel indication for transvenous lead extraction: upgrading implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems

Technological advances have resulted in the development of dual chamber pacemaker/defibrillator systems with smaller pectoral 'active cans'. Patients now have the option of upgrading from abdominal to pectoral or from single to dual chamber devices. In addition, due to the potential complications which may arise with abandoned ICD leads, extraction of preexisting leads may be preferable.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty consecutive patients (11 males), underwent lead extraction and upgrade, either from an abdominal to a pectoral, or from a single to a dual chamber device. The mean age was 62+/-18 years and mean implant duration was 50+/-14 months. Indications for extraction included lead fracture/malfunction (13), ERI/EOL (2), new SVT/VT (2), long charge times (2), and impending erosion (1). An initial attempt was made to remove the lead with gentle traction. If excessive scar tissue prohibited extraction, then a laser sheath was employed. Reimplantation proceeded following standard protocol. Clinical success was achieved in all patients. Eleven of thirty leads were removed with traction. The remaining 19 leads required removal with the laser sheath. All ICD reimplants were placed in the left pectoral position, of which 10 were dual chamber. The mean defibrillation threshold was 9.5+/-5.8 Joules. There were no procedure related perforations or deaths. At follow up (13+/-10 mos. ) there were no infections, lead malfunctions or venous thromboses. There were two deaths, both from intractable heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that, when indicated, ICD leads can be safely extracted and systems successfully upgraded to take advantage of new technology.

Initial experience with a laser sheath to extract chronic transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads

This is the first study of the use of a laser sheath to remove chronic transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. A 16Fr laser sheath was used to extract 14 leads from 11 patients, 6 of whom had undergone failed previous extraction attempts using conventional tools.

Extraction of implanted transvenous pacing leads: a review of a persistent clinical problem

Within a few months of implantation, permanent pacemaker leads become ensheathed in fibrocollagenous tissue. This tissue may anchor the lead so that it is difficult, dangerous, or impossible to remove it. Leads with bulbous or finned tips are particularly resistant to extraction. The risks of applying traction to an entrapped lead include induction of bradycardia or ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation, invagination of the right ventricle, avulsion of the right ventricular myocardium or tricuspid valve, hemopericardium, and cardiac tamponade. Forceful traction may result in uncoiling of the conductor, disruption of the insulation, or complete fracture, leaving an intravascular remnant that may embolize or be a source for thrombosis. Although fixation and abandonment of an inactive chronically implanted lead is frequently appropriate and is known to pose little long-term risk, the retained inactive lead may interact adversely with a new active lead and then increase the risk of venous thrombosis, serve as a potential nidus for infection, or produce spurious electrical sensing signals that may be sensed by the pulse generator. Absolute indications for lead removal are those in which there would be a life-threatening situation if the lead were to remain in situ. In the absence of an absolute indication, the decision to proceed with extraction must be made by weighing the potential for serious morbidity or mortality against risks of the extraction technique. Techniques for lead removal include traction and open cardiotomy operations. When a portion of the lead is intravascular, forceps, snares, baskets, countertraction, or lead-transection devices may be used to retrieve the fragment.

Non-invasive evaluation of ventricular function and volumes during atrioventricular sequential and ventricular pacing

Thirteen patients who all had previously inserted temporary or permanent pacemakers (6, VVI; 7, A-V sequential) were studied by two-dimensional echocardiography and radionuclide gated blood pool ventriculography (RVG) for non-invasive evaluation of cardiac performance. Patients were paced in both the VVI mode and during sinus/atrial or A-V sequential pacing. Although there was no objective change of the ejection fraction during V-pacing and atrial/A-V sequential pacing or sinus rhythm, as has been previously reported, A-V sequential pacing did result in significant improvement in overall cardiac function and output as judged by radionuclide ventriculography and blood pressure response in most of our patients. An appropriately timed atrial contribution to ventricular systole resulted in improved ventricular function in those individuals with pre-existing systolic or diastolic myocardial dysfunction and/or sick sinus syndrome in whom pacemaker therapy was indicated. Radionuclide ventriculography appears to be a reliable, accurate, non-invasive method that can be used to evaluate patients before implantation of a permanent ventricular or atrioventricular pacemaker in order to decide which pacing mode is best for that particular individual.