Intravascular lead extraction using locking stylets and sheaths

Transvenous Lead Extraction: Work in Progress

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are the cornerstone of cardiac rhythm management, with a significant number of implantations annually. A rising prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices coupled with widening indications for device removal has fuelled a demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). With advancement of tools and techniques, the safety and efficacy profile of TLE has significantly improved since its inception. Despite these advances, TLE continues to carry risk of significant complications, including a superior vena cava injury and mortality. However, innovative approaches to lead extraction, including the use of the jugular and femoral accesses, offers potential for further gains in safety and efficacy. In this review, the indications and risks of TLE are discussed while examining the evolution of this procedure from simple traction to advanced methodologies, which have contributed to a significant improvement in safety and efficacy.

Safety and Efficacy of a Single Procedure of Extraction and Reimplantation of Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) in Comparison with Deferral Timing: An Observational Retrospective Multicentric Study

(1) Background: Infections are among the most frequent and life-threatening complications of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome and safety of a single-procedure device extraction and contralateral implantation versus the standard-of-care (SoC) two-stage replacement for infected CIEDs. (2) Methods: We retrospectively included 66 patients with CIED infections who were treated at two Italian hospitals. Of the 66 patients enrolled in the study, 27 underwent a single procedure, whereas 39 received SoC treatment. All patients were followed up for 12 months after the procedure. (3) Results: Considering those lost to follow-up, there were no differences in the mortality rates between the two cohorts, with survival rates of 81.5% in the single-procedure group and 84.6% in the SoC group (p = 0.075). (4) Conclusions: Single-procedure reimplantation associated with an active antibiofilm therapy may be a feasible and effective therapeutic option in CIED-dependent and frail patients. Further studies are warranted to define the best treatment regimen and strategies to select patients suitable for the single-procedure reimplantation.

Unexpected Procedure Difficulties Increasing the Complexity of Transvenous Lead Extraction: The Single Centre Experience with 3721 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) should be completed, even when facing difficulties which have yet to be described. The aim was to explore unexpected TLE obstacles (the circumstances of the occurrence and influence on TLE outcome).

METHODS

The retrospective analysis of a single centre database containing 3721 TLEs.

RESULTS

Unexpected procedure difficulties (UPDs) occurred in 18.43% of cases (singles in 12.20% of cases and multiples in 6.26% of cases). These included blockages in the lead venous approach in3.28% of cases, functional lead dislodgement in 0.91% of cases, and loss of broken lead fragment in 0.60% of cases. All of them, including implant vein-in 7.98% of cases, lead fracture during extraction-in 3.84% of cases, and lead-to-lead adherence-in 6.59% of cases, Byrd dilator collapse-in 3.41% of cases, including the use of an alternative prolonged the procedure but had no influence on long-term mortality. Most of the occurrences were associated with lead dwell time, younger patient age, lead burden, and poorer procedure effectiveness and complications (common cause). However, some of the problems seemed to be related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and the subsequent lead management strategy. A more complete list of all tips and tricks is still required.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) The complexity of the lead extraction procedure combines both prolonged procedure duration and the occurrence of lesser-known UPDs. (2) UPDs are present in nearly one fifth of the TLE procedures, and can occur simultaneously. (3) UPDs, which usually force the extractor to expand the range of techniques and tools, should become part of the training in transvenous lead extraction.

Transvenous Lead Extraction in Adult Patient with Leads Implanted in Childhood-Is That the Same Procedure as in Other Adult Patients?

BACKGROUND

Lead management in children and young adults is still a matter of debate.

METHODS

To assess the course of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in adults with pacemakers implanted in childhood (CIP) we compared 98 CIP patients with a control group consisting of adults with pacemakers implanted in adulthood (AIP).

RESULTS

CIP patients differed from AIP patients with respect to indications for TLE and pacing history. CIP patients were four-eight times more likely to require second-line or advanced tools. Furthermore, CIP patients more often than AIP were prone to developing complications: major complications (MC) (any) 2.6 times; hemopericardium 3.2 times; severe tricuspid valve damage 4.4 times; need for rescue cardiac surgery 3.7 times. The rate of procedural success was 11% lower because of 4.8 times more common lead remnants and 3.1 times more frequent permanently disabling complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to system-related risk factors TLE in CIP patients is more difficult and complex. TLE in CIP is associated with an increased risk of MC and incomplete lead removal. A conservative strategy of lead management, acceptable in very old patients seems to be less suitable in CIP because it creates a subpopulation of patients at high risk of major complications during TLE in the future.

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is considered as more risky. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with infected CRT systems. Methods: Data of 3468 patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center in years 2006−2021 were analyzed. The clinical and procedural parameters as well as the efficacy and safety of TLE were compared between patients with infected CRT and pacemakers (PM) and ICD systems. Results: Infectious indications for TLE occurred in 1138 patients, including 150 infected CRT (112 CRT-D and 38 CRT-P). The general health condition of CRT patients was worse with higher Charlson’s comorbidity index. The number of extracted leads was higher in the CRT group, but implant duration was significantly longer in the PM than in the ICD and CRT groups (98.93 vs. 55.26 vs. 55.43 months p < 0.01). The procedure was longer in duration, more difficult, and more complex in patients with pacemakers than in those in the CRT group. The occurrence of major complications and clinical and procedural success as well as procedure-related death did not show any relationship to the type of CIED device. Mortality at more than one-year follow-up after TLE was significantly higher among patients with CRT devices (22.7% vs. 8.7%) than among those in the PM group. Conclusion: Despite the greater burden of lead and comorbidities, the complexity and efficiency of removing infected CRT systems is no more dangerous than removing other infected systems. The duration of the implant seems to play a dominant role.

Powered sheaths for lead extraction

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has seen a rapid expansion in the past 20 years. The procedure has changed from early techniques involving simple manual traction that frequently proved themselves ineffective for chronically implanted leads, and carried significant periprocedural risks including death, to the availability of a wide range of more efficacious techniques and tools, providing the skilled extractor with a well-equipped armamentarium. The reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with these new extraction techniques has widened indications to TLE from prevalent use in life-threatening situations, such as infection and sepsis, to a more widespread use even in noninfectious situations such as malfunctioning leads. Powered sheaths have been a remarkable step forward in this improvement in TLE procedures and recent registries at high-volume centers report high success rates with exceedingly low complication rates. This review is aimed at describing technical features of powered sheaths as well as reported performance during TLE procedures.

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.

Safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction of very old leads

OBJECTIVES

Transvenous lead extraction using mechanical rotational- or laser sheaths is an established procedure. Lead dwell time has been recognized as a risk factor for extraction failure and procedure-related complications. We therefore investigated the safety and efficacy of transvenous extraction of leads with an implant duration of more than 10 years.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and March 2017, a total of 403 patients underwent lead extraction in 2 high-volume lead extraction centres. One hundred and fifty-four patients with extraction of at least 1 lead aged over 10 years were included in this analysis. Laser lead extraction was the primary extraction method, with additional use of mechanical rotational sheaths or femoral snares, if necessary. All procedural- and patient-based data were collected into a database and retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Mean patient's age was 65.8 ± 15.8 years, 68.2% were male. Three hundred and sixty-two leads had to be extracted. The mean lead dwell time of treated leads was 14.0 ± 6.1 years. Complete procedural success was achieved in 91.6% of cases, while clinical success was achieved in 96.8%. Failure of extraction occurred in 3.2%. Leads that could not be completely removed had a significantly longer lead dwell time (18.2 vs 13.2 years; P = 0.016). Additional mechanical rotational sheaths or femoral snares were used in 26 (16.9%) patients. Overall complication rate was 4.6%, including 5 (3.3%) major and 2 (1.3%) minor complications. There was no procedure-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvenous lead extraction in leads aged over 10 years is safe and effective when performed in specialized centres and with use of multiple tools and techniques. Leads that could not be completely extracted had a statistically significant longer lead dwell time.

A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are morbid, costly, and difficult to manage. This review explores the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of CIED infections. Diagnostic accuracy has been improved through increased awareness and improved imaging strategies. Pocket or bloodstream infection with virulent organisms often requires complete system extraction. Emerging prophylactic interventions and novel devices have expanded preventative strategies and options for re-implantation. A clear and nuanced understanding of CIED infection is important to the practicing electrophysiologist.

Early-BYRD: alternative early pacing and defibrillation lead replacement avoiding venous puncture

BACKGROUND

In cases of lead failure after implantation of pacemakers (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) early lead replacement may be challenging. Puncture of the subclavian vein bears possible complications such as pneumothorax, hematothorax, and damage of leads to be left in place. To avoid venous puncture PM or ICD leads were replaced using a flexible polypropylene sheath (Byrd-sheath).

METHOD

From January 2010 through December 2017, 55 patients underwent early lead exchange avoiding venous puncture. Early lead exchange for this study was defined as a reintervention within 14 days after the initial lead implantation. The connector of the malfunctioning lead was cut off, and stabilized by a stiff stylet. After having cut off the plastic knob of the stylet, the lead was passed through the polypropylene sheath and the latter advanced into the subclavian vein with gentle rotational movements to gain access to the subclavian vein. After lead removal the polypropylene sheath was replaced by a peel away sheath a new lead inserted.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 defibrillation leads and 34 pacing leads (16 right atrial leads, 17 right ventricular leads, and 1 left ventricular lead) were successfully explanted. Access to the subclavian vein was uneventful, and blood loss minimal. Radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time were also negligible.

CONCLUSION

The Byrd-sheath technique proved to be safe and successful in providing vein access within 2 weeks after initial lead implantation using the previously implanted lead and thus avoiding puncture of the subclavian vein.

Neointimal fibrotic lead encapsulation - Clinical challenges and demands for implantable cardiac electronic devices

Every tenth patient with a cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted is expected to have at least one lead problem in his lifetime. However, transvenous leads are often difficult to remove due to thrombotic obstruction or extensive neointimal fibrotic ingrowth. Despite its clinical significance, knowledge on lead-induced vascular fibrosis and neointimal lead encapsulation is sparse. Although leadless pacemakers are already available, their clinical operating range is limited. Therefore, lead/tissue interactions must be further improved in order to improve lead removals in particular. The published data on the coherences and issues related to lead associated vascular fibrosis and neointimal lead encapsulation are reviewed and discussed in this paper.

Lead extraction with high frequency laser sheaths: a single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

Extraction of chronically implanted cardiac implantable electrophysiological devices leads can be difficult. Excimer laser-assisted extraction with 40 Hz sheaths has shown good results in challenging cases. In 2012, a new 80 Hz high-frequency laser sheath became available that delivers twice as many pulses per second. Here, we report our clinical experience with the new GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheath.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and August 2016, 292 leads were treated in 151 patients using 80 Hz GlideLight laser sheath. Lead extraction indications included systemic infection or lead endocarditis n =  35 (23.2%), local infection n =  73 (48.3%), lead dysfunction n =  32 (21.2%), system upgrade n =  5 (3.3%), tricuspid regurgitation n =  3 (2.0%) and other indications n =  3 (2.0). All patient-related and procedural data were collected into a database and analysed.

RESULTS

Mean patient's age was 66.2 ± 14.4 years, 73.5% were male. Ninety-one (31.2%) atrial, 159 (54.4%) ventricular and 42 (14.4%) coronary sinus leads had to be extracted. The mean time from initial lead implantation was 98.0 ± 65.2 months. Mean laser treatment time was 67.5 ± 71.3 s, mean laser pulses delivered were 5130 ± 6592. Clinical success was achieved in 99.3% of the cases, while complete procedural success was observed in 96.7%. A failure of extraction was seen in 2 (1.3%) patients. An overall complication rate of 2.0%, including two major (1.3%) and one minor (0.7%) complications, was observed. No periprocedural mortality was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

The new GlideLight high-frequency laser sheath allows for a high safety and efficacy in extraction of chronically implanted pacemaker- and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads.

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.

Extraction of chronically implanted cardiovascular electronic device leads

OPINION STATEMENT

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are a remarkable success story. These systems are widely used to prevent symptomatic bradycardia, treat malignant tachyarrhythmia, and to restore a more physiologic contraction to a failing left ventricle. Implantation of a CIED usually involves a lifelong commitment to this therapy, which, unfortunately, is not free from complication requiring removal and/or replacement of all or part of the system. The major obstacle to removal of a CIED is the fibrous attachments that develop between a lead and co-existent leads, veins, and the heart. This process increases over time such that, by one year, removal by traction alone may be problematic and, if aggressive, result in complication. Physicians, surgeons, and engineers have refined techniques of percutaneous lead extraction and developed tools, which have facilitated the process, increased success, and lowered the incidence of complication. Extraction may be performed for a variety of indications some of which are unanimously agreed upon while others remain controversial. Proponents of a broadened application of extraction have proffered the concept of 'lead management,' which includes the removal of all leads that are not clinically relevant to the patient. The benefit of this approach would be to limit the risk of future complication, such as venous occlusion or thromboembolism, and to obviate the increase in difficulty of extraction (due to longer implant duration) that might accompany removal should that be required in the future. Intuitively appealing as this approach might be, there is little evidence supporting it, and the extraordinarily large number of patients currently implanted with recalled ICD leads is indicative of the potential impact this practice may have. This review will discuss extraction, its indications, and outcomes.

Re-evaluation of transvenous lead extraction with modified standard technique: a prospective study in 229 patients

As new-type powered sheaths are expensive and unavailable, the standard lead extraction techniques remain the mainstay in clinical applications in many countries. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the clinical application of the standard lead extraction techniques and equipment, and make some procedural modifications and innovations. In our center, between January 2006 and May 2012, 229 patients (median, 66 years) who underwent lead extraction due to infection and lead malfunction were registered and followed up prospectively with respect to clinical features, reasons for lead extraction, technical characteristics, and clinical prognosis. A total of 440 leads had to be extracted transvenously by using special tools from 229 patients (male, 72.1%). Vegetations ≥1 cm were detected in six patients. Locking Stylets were applied for 398 (90.5%) leads. Telescoping dilator polypropylene sheaths and counter traction technique were used for 202 (45.9%) leads due to lead adhesion, and the mean implant duration of the 202 leads was longer than the other 238 leads (48.9±22.6 vs. 26.6±17.8 months; P <0.01). In addition, modified isolation and snare techniques were used for 56 leads (12.7%). Minor and major procedure-related complications occurred in three (1.3%) and four (1.7%) cases respectively, including one death (0.4%). Severe lead residue occurred in one case. Complete procedural success rate was 96.1% (423/440), and clinical success rate was 98.9% (435/440). The median follow-up period was 18 (1-76) months. No infection- and procedure-related death occurred in our series. Our data demonstrated that high clinical success rate of transvenous lead extraction can be guaranteed by making full use of the standard lead extraction techniques and equipment with individualized modifications.

Comparison of standard and modified transvenous techniques for complex pacemaker lead extractions in the context of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infections: a 10-year experience

AIMS

Complete lead extraction of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) for device-related infections remains a complex procedure for chronically implantated leads. We present data from a single-centre registry of consecutive patients with extractions over 10 years.

METHOD AND RESULTS

Patients were identified from the centre's electronic database with CIED-related infections who underwent lead extraction using either the standard technique and equipment or a modified innovative transvenous lead technique extraction using an ablation catheter. Of 151 patients with CIED-related infections, not responding to simple manual traction to effect lead extraction, average age 65 ± 8 years (range 45-82), 64% being male, 75 underwent standard (S) extraction, and 76 underwent modified (M) extraction. Procedural, lead extraction, and fluoroscopy exposure times with S and M methods, respectively, were 65 ± 14 vs. 52 ± 6 min (P < 0.01), 56 ± 12 vs. 36 ± 8 min (P < 0.001), and 48 ± 12 vs. 31 ± 7 min (P < 0.001). Retrieval rates were numerically lower with the standard technique at 92 vs. 96% but did not achieve significance, with respective complication rates of 6.7 and 5.3%.

CONCLUSION

In our single-centre study, a modified extraction technique to retrieve leads for infections of CIEDs using a steerable ablation catheter has improved procedural parameters over the standard technique, without compromising clinical lead extraction success rates. This may be a promising approach for a future, prospective trial.

Management of Cardiac Device Infections: A Retrospective Survey of a Non-Surgical Approach Combining Antibiotic Therapy with Transvenous Removal

Pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have become life-saving therapeutic tools for patients with cardiac arrhythmia. Complications include thrombosis, embolism and infections at a highly variable rate. Surgical removal of the infected device has been perceived as the only way to guarantee a successful outcome and to reduce the high risk of mortality. Recently, a transvenous extraction method has been developed to remove infected intracardiac leads without sternotomy. This survey was designed to evaluate the outcome of an approach combining antibiotic therapy with non-surgical transvenous complete removal for the management of cardiac device infections (CDIs). We reviewed case-histories of 121 patients (105 with PM and 16 with ICD infections). The aim of our retrospective survey was to ascertain that a non-invasive transvenous complete removal of the infected devices is safe and effective when associated with appropriate antibiotic therapy starting 10 days before the procedure and extending to at least three weeks after. The infected devices were successfully removed in all patients with a non-surgical transvenous technique. The infections were most frequently caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (70%), Staphylococcus aureus (14%), and Gram-negative rods (12%). Polymicrobial infections were documented in 19 patients and represent 16% of all device-related infections. The removal of the devices was done during antibiotic therapy, administered for a median of 26 days (range 23 to 45 days). Neither fatalities nor relapse of infections were recorded in the patient population during the one-year follow-up visits. According to our experience, CDIs can be treated with antibiotic therapy and non-surgical removal of the entire infected device, thus allowing a successful reimplantation. This procedure prevents recurrent infections and operative mortality.

Single surgical procedure combining epicardial pacemaker implantation and subsequent extraction of the infected pacing system for pacemaker-dependent patients

OBJECTIVES

Management of pacemaker infection in pacing-dependent patients is often challenging. Typically, temporary pacing is used while antibiotic therapy is given for a number of days before reimplantation of a new endocardial system. This results in a prolonged hospital stay and complications associated with temporary pacing. In this study, we examine the feasibility of performing a single combined procedure of epicardial pacemaker implantation followed by system extraction.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive infected pacemaker-dependent patients underwent implantation of 2 epicardial ventricular leads and were converted to a ventricular demand pacing system. The infected pacing system was then extracted during the same procedure. Patients were followed up for 12 months.

RESULTS

Significant pericardial bleeding developed during the procedure in 3 patients. The presence of the pericardial drain positioned during the implantation of the epicardial pacing system meant that cardiac tamponade did not occur, allowing surgical repair with sternotomy to be carried out under stable hemodynamic conditions. Two of these 100 patients died in the 30-day postoperative period; 1 death was due to septic shock and 1 to pulmonary distress. Median 1-year epicardial pacing thresholds were stable and excellent (1.4 ± 0.9 volts). However, 1 of the 2 leads developed increased thresholds in 6 patients, which led to the exclusive use of other ventricular lead.

CONCLUSIONS

A single combined procedure of surgical epicardial pacemaker implantation and pacemaker system extraction appears to be a safe and effective method for managing pacemaker-dependent patients with infected pacemakers.

Microbiology of cardiac implantable electronic device infections

AIMS

The aim of the study was to describe the microbiological findings of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) infection in the 2000-2011 period at the Cardiology Unit of New Santa Chiara Hospital in Pisa (Italy).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Removed CIED leads and pocket material were seeded on solid media and isolates tested for antimicrobial susceptibility with the Kirby Bauer method. Electrodes from 1204 patients were analysed and 854 (70.9%) tested positive. In 663 (77.6%) cases only one species was isolated, in 175 (20.5%) two species, and in 14 (1.8%) >2 species. In 116 cases material from the pocket was also cultured. The result was consistent with that from the electrodes in 69 (59%) cases. In 359 cases a blood sample was also obtained for culture. The result was consistent with that from the leads in 124 (35%) cases. A total of 1068 strains were isolated from electrodes. Gram-positive organisms were most frequently isolated (92.5% of isolates); particularly, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), mainly Staphylococcus epidermidis, in 69% of cases and Staphylococcus aureus in 13.8%, Gram-negative rods in 6.1%, yeasts in 1% and molds in 0.4%. Overall, Oxacillin resistance was 30%, in particular 33% among CoNS and 13% among S. aureus. Oxacillin resistance and quinolones resistance have increased in the period 2006-2011 with respect to the 5 years before. Seventeen percent of Enterobacteriaceae strains had a phenotype compatible with extended spectrum beta-lactamase expression.

CONCLUSIONS

Culture of the leads offers the possibility of an aetiological diagnosis in the majority of cases. When material from the pocket can be obtained, the microbiological result is often consistent with that from the electrodes, while species isolated from blood cultures are often different and more likely to be the result of contamination. Cardiac implantable electronic device infection is more often monomicrobial, CoNS are most frequently isolated and S. epidermidis is largely the main single agent. Very early infections were associated with S. aureus infection. The pattern of susceptibility to antimicrobials is in general that of community-acquired infections, although oxacillin resistance and quinolones resistance has increased in the last 5 years.

Outcomes and predictors of difficulty with coronary sinus lead removal

With increasing coronary sinus (CS) pacemaker leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy, the need to remove these leads has risen. The purpose of this study is to describe a single center's experience with CS lead removal and to attempt to identify predictors of difficulty with lead removal and complications. We reviewed all percutaneous endocardial CS lead removals performed at our institution through February 2010. Successful removal with traction alone was considered simple while complex extractions required traction devices and/or laser sheaths. Between December 1996 and February 2010, 125 CS leads were percutaneously removed ≥1 week post-implantation from 115 patients. One attempt at CS lead extraction was unsuccessful. The average duration since implantation for the CS leads was 1.54 years (± .75 years, range 8 days to 8.24 years). The majority of the leads were removed by simple traction (n = 114, 91.2 %). The remainder were removed by femoral approach with snare (n = 3, 2.4 %), locking stylet (n = 2, 1.6 %), or locking stylet and laser sheath (n = 6, 4.8 %). Half of CS leads in place greater than 4 years required complex extraction (n = 7/14, 50 %). CS complications (n = 11 patients, 8.8 %) included CS or tributary thrombosis (n = 7/102, 6.9 %) and CS dissection (n = 4/102, 3.9 %). Major non-CS complications (n = 2 patients, 1.6 %) included a cardiac tear requiring pericardiocentesis and thoracotomy (n = 1, 0.8 %) and subclavian vein tear requiring surgical repair (n = 1, 0.8 %). Minor non-CS complications (n = 9 patients, 7.2 %) included a pneumothorax (n = 1, 0.8 %), hematoma (n = 2, 1.6 %), subclavian vein thrombosis (n = 3, x%), and blood transfusion (n = 5, 4.0 %). A longer duration since implantation and larger lead diameter were associated with complex versus simple removal (p < .0001 and p = .0009 respectively). Percutaneous CS lead removal is successful by simple traction alone in the vast majority of cases. CS leads in place greater than 4 years, however, often require complex extraction. Specific extraction techniques can be implemented when simple traction is unsuccessful without an appreciable increase in complications.

Percutaneous pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction in 100 patients with intracardiac vegetations defined by transesophageal echocardiogram

OBJECTIVES

We describe the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of percutaneous lead extraction in patients at a tertiary care center who had intracardiac vegetations identified by transesophageal echocardiogram.

BACKGROUND

Infection in the presence of intracardiac devices is a problem of considerable morbidity and mortality. Patients with intracardiac vegetations are at high risk for complications related to extraction and protracted clinical courses. Historically, lead extraction in this cohort has been managed by surgical thoracotomy.

METHODS

We analyzed percutaneous lead extractions performed from January 1991 to September 2007 in infected patients with echocardiographic evidence of intracardiac vegetations, followed by a descriptive and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 984 patients underwent extraction of 1,838 leads; local or systemic infection occurred in 480 patients. One hundred patients had intracardiac vegetations identified by transesophageal echocardiogram, and all underwent percutaneous lead extraction (215 leads). Mean age was 67 years. Median extraction time was 3 min per lead; median implant duration was 34 months. During the index hospitalization, a new device was implanted in 54 patients at a median of 7 days after extraction. Post-operative 30-day mortality was 10%; no deaths were related directly to the extraction procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with intracardiac vegetations identified on transesophageal echocardiogram can safely undergo complete device extraction using standard percutaneous lead extraction techniques. Permanent devices can safely be reimplanted provided blood cultures remain sterile. The presence of intracardiac vegetations identifies a subset of patients at increased risk for complications and early mortality from systemic infection despite device extraction and appropriate antimicrobial therapy.

Transvenous removal of pacing and implantable cardiac defibrillating leads using single sheath mechanical dilatation and multiple venous approaches: high success rate and safety in more than 2000 leads

AIMS

The aim of the present study was to describe a 10 years single-centre experience in pacing and defibrillating leads removal using an effective and safe modified mechanical dilatation technique.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a single mechanical dilating sheath extraction technique with multiple venous entry site approaches. We performed a venous entry site approach (VEA) in cases of exposed leads and an alternative transvenous femoral approach (TFA) combined with an internal transjugular approach (ITA) in the presence of very tight binding sites causing failure of VEA extraction or in cases of free-floating leads. We attempted to remove 2062 leads [1825 pacing and 237 implantable cardiac defibrillating (ICD) leads; 1989 exposed at the venous entry site and 73 free-floating] in 1193 consecutive patients. The VEA was effective in 1799 leads, the TFA in 28, and the ITA in 205; in the overall population, we completely removed 2032 leads (98.4%), partially removed 18 (0.9%), and failed to remove 12 leads (0.6%). Major complications were observed in eight patients (0.7%), causing three deaths (0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical single sheath extraction technique with multiple venous entry site approaches is effective, safe, and with a good cost effective profile for pacing and ICD leads removal.

Laser-assisted lead extraction: the European experience

AIMS

The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and effectiveness of Excimer laser-assisted lead extraction in Europe. The final European multi-centre study experience is presented.

METHOD AND RESULTS

The Excimer is a cool cutting laser (50 degrees C) with a wavelength of 308 nm. The energy is emitted from the tip of a flexible sheath and is absorbed by proteins and lipids, 64% of the energy is absorbed at a tissue depth of 0.06 mm. The sheath is positioned over the lead, and the fibrosis surrounding the lead is vaporized while advancing the sheath without damaging other leads. From August 1996 to March 2001, 383 leads (170 atrial, 213 ventricular) in 292 patients (mean age 61.6 years, range 13-96) were extracted at 14 European centres. Mean implantation time was 74 months (3-358). Most frequent indications were pocket infection (26%), non-functional leads (21%), patient morbidity (21%), septicaemia or endocarditis (14%), erosion (5%), and lead interference (8%). Median extraction time was 15 min (1-300). Complete extraction was achieved in 90.9% of the leads and partial extraction in 3.4%. Extraction failed in 5.7% of the leads. Major complications = perforations caused 10/22 (3.4/5.7%) of the failures. Most partially extracted patients were considered clinically successful, as only minor lead parts without clinical significance were left. Femoral non-laser technique was used to remove 8/12 of the non-complication failures. The total complication rate, including five minor complications (1.7%), was 5.1%. No in-hospital mortality occurred.

CONCLUSION

Pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads can safely, effectively, and predictably be extracted. Open-heart extractions can be limited to special cases. The results indicate that the traditional policy of abandoning redundant leads, instead of removing them, may be obsolete in many patients.

Extracción de electrodos de marcapasos y desfibrilador mediante técnicas percutáneas

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is an increasing need for endocardial pacing and defibrillators leads to be removed. However, the procedure can be complex and it is not risk-free. We reviewed our experience between April 1989 and June 2006 with the percutaneous extraction of leads.

METHODS

In total, 314 electrodes were extracted from 187 patients. The leads had been implanted over an average period of 69.16 months (range 0.11-234.6 months, median 60.25 months). Some 115 were atrial leads, 196 were ventricular, and three were in the coronary veins; of these, 78 had been abandoned in the vascular bed.

RESULTS

Indications for removal were infection (26.1%), dysfunction (22.9%), erosion (25%), endocarditis (20.7%), and bacteremia (2.7%). Overall, 58.8% of patients were referred from other departments. In 96.8%, the electrodes were completely removed. Simple traction was used in 23.4%, and countertraction techniques (with and without radiofrequency current support) were used in 60.7%. For abandoned leads, a biopsy clamp was used in combination with countertraction (4.3%) or a femoral approach with a snare (10.1%). A sternotomy was required in three of the 10 patients with remaining electrode fragments. The complication rate was 4.6% (with major complications in 2.5%). Complications were associated with age < 60 years (odds ratio [OR]=5.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-27.23), the presence of endocarditis (OR=4.97: 95%CI, 1.04-23.70), and right side implantation (OR=17.09; 95% CI, 2.15-135.70).

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of cases, pacing and defibrillator leads can be removed without difficulty using modern extraction techniques. However, because there is a risk of complications during extraction, even though it is low, the procedure should be carried out in specialized centers with surgical facilities.

Surgical extraction of infected pacemaker leads after cardiac surgery

Surgical extraction of permanent pacemaker leads is performed when noninvasive extraction is felt to be unsafe or has been unsuccessfully attempted. Surgical extraction in patients with previous cardiac surgery presents a particular challenge as re-sternotomy is hazardous and the presence of surgical adhesions makes video-assisted approaches difficult. We report 2 cases of successful deployment of a surgical technique using femorofemoral cardiopulmonary bypass and right anterior thoracotomy for removal of pacemaker leads.

Surgical lead-preserving procedures for pacemaker pocket infection

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of pacemaker pocket infection, removal of the entire pacing system has been considered necessary to avoid recurrent infection. We report a series of patients treated surgically by our lead-preserving procedures.

METHODS

Between 1990 and 2001, a total of 18 patients underwent one of two types of lead-preserving procedures. Procedure 1 preserves the full length of the lead, and procedure 2 preserves only the distal part of the lead. Signs of bacteremia, endocarditis, or purulent material within the lead insulation preclude application of these procedures in patients with potential or definite pacemaker pocket infection.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients who met the indications for our procedures were discharged 7 to 14 days (8.9 +/- 2.4 days, mean +/- SD) postoperatively without signs of infection and were followed up for a total of 987 patient-months until the close of the study or death without recurrent infection. The remaining 1 patient, who did not meet the indications, suffered reinfection soon after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The follow-up data suggest that our lead-preserving procedures should be considered as alternatives to conventional removal of the entire pacing system in cases of pocket infection that meet specific criteria.

Advances in device lead extraction

The removal of chronically implanted pacemaker and defibrillator leads has evolved over the past 20 years into an integral part of the medical and surgical practice of electrophysiology. It is the basis for management of device-related complications. Lead removal has progressed from just pulling, to a sophisticated procedure based on telescoping sheaths, counterpressure, and countertraction. Current telescoping sheaths have a powered tip (laser or electrosurgical) for more efficient extirpation of leads from encapsulating fibrous tissue. The management of a device infection exemplifies the spectrum of procedures ranging from debridement of inflammatory tissue to transvenous, transatrial, or epicardial lead reimplantation (care must be given to the consequences of chronic implant complications such as superior vein occlusion). The magnitude of these lead removal procedures ranges from a transvenous procedure to cardiopulmonary bypass removing a pannus of infected material. Current procedure related mortality is less than 0.2% at experienced centers.

Cardiac lead extraction with a novel locking stylet

Extraction of chronically implanted pacing and defibrillator leads is facilitated by using specialized locking stylets placed in the lead to allow application of traction and to stabilize the lead during sheath dissection of fibrotic tissue. We report the initial multicenter series of cases using a novel lead locking device (LLD). In 57 consecutive patients presenting at 6 institutions for lead extraction, 99 leads were treated using the LLD. After removing the pulse generator, leads were severed, the inner coil dilated and an LLD was successfully inserted and locked in the inner lumen of 95/99 (96 %) leads. With traction applied to the LLD, a variety of sheaths were advanced over the lead body to separate it from adhesions. In 97/99 (98 %) leads, all or most of the lead was removed via the implant vein; 2 leads were removed via the femoral vein. No major complications were observed. The LLD deploys safely and reliably, and provides stable support for advancement of dissecting sheaths.

Is there an adverse outcome from abandoned pacing leads?

BACKGROUND

Indications for extraction of an abandoned pacemaker lead (APL) are controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not APLs should be extracted in the absence of pacemaker-related problems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively reviewed, from 1977 through 1998, all patients with retained, non-functional leads and identified 433-266 males and 167 females. Mean age at initial pacemaker implantation was 68[emsp4 ]years. These patients received a total of 259 atrial and 948 ventricular leads. Of the total of 1,207 leads, 611 became non-functional. A total of 531 non-functional leads were abandoned, of which 18 were later extracted: one APL in 345 patients, two in 78, and three in 10. Indications for new lead placement when non-functional leads were abandoned included capture and/or sensing failure (243), lead recall (177), lead fracture (86), pacing system replacement to the contralateral side (11), accommodating patient growth (5), pacemaker function upgrade (5), replacement with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD, 2), interference with ICD (1), and unknown (1). Complications that were associated with pacemakers were found in 24 patients (5.5%)-pacemaker system infection (8 patients) and venous occlusion at the time of a subsequent procedure of new lead placement when APLs had already been in place (16) which resulted in APL extraction (7) or transfer of the pacemaker system to the contralateral side (9). Neither venous thrombosis nor other complications were found in the remaining 409 patients (94.5%). The incidence of complications was higher in patients with three APLs than in patients with two or fewer APLs (40% vs. 4.7%, P=1x10(-6)), in patients with four or more total lead implantations than in patients with three or fewer total lead implantations (26.2% vs. 0. 6%, P<1x10(-10)), and in patients with three or more procedures of new lead placements than in patients with two or fewer procedures of new lead placements (36.4% vs. 3.9%, P=1x10(-10)). Patients with complications were younger than those without complications both at the time of initial pacemaker implantation (59+/-16 vs. 68+/-17 y, P=0.01) and when non-functional leads were abandoned (63+/-15 vs. 71+/-16 y, P=0.04). Mean numbers of APLs, total leads implanted, and procedures of new lead placement were significantly larger in patients with complications than in those without complications (1.58+/-0.78 vs. 1.2+/-0.44, 4.96+/-1.23 vs. 2.66+/-0.8, and 2.13+/-0.85 vs. 1.25+/-0.53, P=0.03, 4x10(-9) and 4x10(-5), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

1. With only 5.5% of patients having had pacemaker-related complications, the adverse outcome of APL is small. 2. Clinical clues to the possible occasion for pacemaker-related complications include three or more APLs, four or more total leads, three or more procedures of new lead placement, and a younger age at initial pacemaker implantation. 3. Patients with a large number of APLs, total lead implantations, and procedures of new lead placement should be carefully observed to detect possible pacemaker-associated complications.

Recommendations for extraction of chronically implanted transvenous pacing and defibrillator leads: indications, facilities, training. North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology Lead Extraction Conference Faculty

The procedure of lead removal has recently matured into a definable, teachable art with its own specific tools and techniques. It is now time to recognize and formalize the practice of lead removal according to the current methods of medicine and the health care industry. In addition, since at this time the only prospective scientific study of lead extraction is the PLEXES trial, we suggest that studies relating to the techniques of and indications for lead extraction be designed. Recommendations for a common set of definitions, for a framework of training and reviewing physicians in the art, for general methods of reimbursement, and for consistency among clinical trials have been made. Implementation of these recommendations will require additional effort and cooperation from practicing physicians, medical societies, hospital administrations, and industry.