Intravascular extraction of chronic pacemaker leads: efficacy and follow-up

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.

Prospective postmarket device studies versus returned product analysis as a predictor of system survival

Monitoring and reporting mechanisms are vital tools for clinicians to assess ICD system performance over time for optimal patient care. This article explores the various reporting mechanisms available to the clinician, both historical and current, and compares and contrasts two such methods. The lead survival rates obtained by return product analysis (RPA) are compared with those from an ongoing prospective chronic study that actively follows patients for clinical ICD system failures (Tachyarrhythmia Chronic Systems Study [TCSS]). Examination of available data shows that a prospective study such as the TCSS is capable of detecting clinically significant adverse events in 2.2% of the 3,958 leads followed. By comparison, RPA-based monitoring of the same leads detects "out of specification" events in 0.5% of the 78,571 leads followed. Statistical analyses of two separate families of leads (RV leads and SQ Patch leads) show that survival rates obtained by the two methods begin to differ at approximately 2 years of implant experience, with 95% confidence intervals no longer overlapping at 3 years. The authors conclude that prospective chronic device studies are a superior tool for the ongoing monitoring of implanted device performance compared to RPA-based reports.

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.

Feasibility, safety, and determinants of extraction time of percutaneous extraction of endocardial implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads by intravascular countertraction method

Previous studies of the removal of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads have been restricted to case reports or small series. In this report, we describe our experience in ICD lead extraction by intravascular countertraction method using Cook's extraction kit. A total of 47 high-voltage (HV) leads, 3 rate sensing (S) leads, and 2 subcutaneous arrays were removed from 42 patients (33 men, 9 women; mean age 59 years [range 14 to 81]). One HV superior vena cava (SVC) lead and 11 HV right ventricular (RV) leads were explanted by manual traction only and defined in the "lead removal" category. One S lead was removed using a femoral venous approach. The remaining 37 leads were explanted by SVC approach using extraction sheaths and defined in the "lead extraction" category. Twenty leads were extracted for "infectious" (group A) and 17 leads for "noninfectious" (group B) etiologies for which extraction times of 27.0+/-18.0 and 27.0+/-15.0 minutes (mean+/-SD), respectively, were not different. Although extraction time, 34.0+/-11.0 minutes, for leads implanted for >48 months was longer than 23.0+/-16.0, 28.0+/-18.0, and 24.0+/-14.0 minutes, for leads with implant durations of 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively, such differences were not statistically significant. The extraction time, however, was directly related to the degree of fibrosis around the lead, 39.0+/-15.0 minutes for leads with severe fibrosis compared with 13.0+/-6.0 minutes for the leads with mild fibrosis (p<0.001). Patient's age, sex, or history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery did not significantly affect extraction time. All except the initial 2 lead extractions were performed in the electrophysiology laboratory. No mortality or serious complications associated with the procedure using these methods were observed.

Current concepts in extraction of transvenous pacing and ICD leads

Extraction of chronically implanted pacing leads involves a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology of lead maturation and the problems that may occur. It also requires specific knowledge of lead construction and the idiosyncrasies of individual lead models. Though we have evolved to use a standardized approach to lead extraction, each patient and lead removal is unique. The operator must be ready to adapt the technique and tools used to the situation at hand. The more experience and the more tools available to the operator, the more likely that there will be a safe and successful outcome to the procedure. Preparation for disaster is mandatory, such that when a complication does occur, one may respond quickly and therefore salvage the patient.

Percutaneous transcatheter repositioning of displaced permanent pacemaker lead

In three patients, two with a pacemaker and one with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, hospitalized for dislodgement of a passive fixation J-shaped atrial lead, a percutaneous transcatheter repositioning was successfully attempted thus avoiding surgical revision. This procedure, performed through the femoral vein, is easy and safe. The stability of the lead position and of the pacing and sensing parameters was confirmed 1 and 6 months after the transcatheter repositioning.

Intravascular extraction of problematic or infected permanent pacemaker leads: 1994-1996. U.S. Extraction Database, MED Institute

Of the 400,000-500,000 permanent pacemaker leads implanted worldwide each year, around 10% may eventually fail or become infected, becoming potential candidates for removal. Intravascular techniques for removing problematic or infected leads evolved over a 5-year period (1989-1993). This article analyzes results from January 1994 through April 1996, a period during which techniques were fairly stable. Extraction of 3,540 leads from 2,338 patients was attempted at 226 centers. Indications were: infection (27%), nonfunctional or incompatible leads (25%), Accufix or Encore leads (46%), or other causes (2%). Patients were 64+/-17 years of age (range 5-96); 59% were men, 41% women. Leads were implanted 47+/-41 months (maximum 26 years), in the atrium (53%), ventricle (46%), or SVC (1%). Extraction was attempted via the implant vein using locking stylets and dilator sheaths, and/or transfemorally using snares, retrieval baskets, and sheaths. Complete removal was achieved for 93% of leads, partial for 5%, and 2% were not removed. Risk of incomplete or failed extraction increased with implant duration (P<0.0001), less experienced physicians (P<0.0001), ventricular leads (P<0.005), noninfected patients (P<0.0005), and younger patients (P<0.0001). Major complications were reported for 1.4% of patients (<1% at centers with >300 cases), minor for 1.7%. Risk of complications increased with number of leads removed (P<0.005) and with less experienced physicians (P<0.005); risk of major complications was higher for women (P<0.01). Given physician experience, appropriate precautions, and appropriate patient selection, contemporary lead removal techniques allow success with low complication rates.

Pulmonary embolization of a pacing electrode fragment complicating lead extraction

We present a case that demonstrates an unusual complication of electrode extraction, namely asymptomatic embolization of a pacing electrode fragment into the pulmonary vascular bed.

Postmortem analysis of encapsulation around long-term ventricular endocardial pacing leads

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the site and thickness of encapsulation around ventricular endocardial pacing leads and the extent of tricuspid valve adhesion, from today's perspective, with implications for lead removal and sensor location.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Gross cardiac postmortem analysis was performed in 11 cases (8 female and 3 male patients; mean age, 78+/-7 years). None of the patients had died because of pacemaker malfunction. The mean implant time was 61+/-60 months (range, 4 to 184).

RESULTS

The observations ranged from encapsulation only at the tip of the pacing lead to complete encapsulation along the entire length of the pacing lead within the right ventricle. Substantial areas of adhesion at the tricuspid valve apparatus were noted in 7 of the 11 cases (64%). The firmly attached leads could be removed only by dissection, and in some cases, removal was possible only by damaging the associated structures. No specific optimal site for sensor placement could be identified along the ventricular portion of the pacing leads; however, the fibrotic response was relatively less prominent in the atrial chamber.

CONCLUSION

Extensive encapsulation is present in most long-term pacemaker leads, which may complicate lead removal. The site and thickness of encapsulation seem to be highly variable. Tricuspid valve adhesion, which is usually underestimated, may be severe. In contrast to earlier reports, our study demonstrates that the extent of fibrotic encapsulation may not be related to the duration since lead implantation. Moreover, we noted no ideal encapsulation-free site for sensors on the ventricular portion of long-term pacing leads.

Extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads

The common reasons for removal of pacing and defibrillator leads are infection, malfunction, or design defects such as fracture of J wires in Teletronics Accufix leads (Telectronics Pacing, Englewood, CO), which impose considerable risk for cardiac morbidity and mortality. Chronically implanted leads are fixed to the myocardium by fibrous tissue. Fibrous scar tissue may also encase the lead along its course. Furthermore, fragility of the lead and its tendency to break when extraction force is applied to overcome resistance imparted by the scar tissue add to the challenge of lead extraction. Thus, the extraction of chronically implanted leads is an important issue. Until a few years ago, the only methods available for the removal of chronically implanted leads were traction on the proximal segment of the lead and cardiac surgery. New techniques were developed to extract the leads by a transvenous approach using locking stylets, sheaths, snares, and retrieval baskets. Lead extraction using intravascular countertraction methods has since evolved as a specialty of its own. Progress has also been made in developing other system, such as Excimer laser energy for lead extraction. In this article, we discuss principles, techniques, and experience with these methods of extraction of chronic pacemaker and defibrillator leads.

Undertreatment and overtreatment of patients with infected antiarrhythmic implantable devices

BACKGROUND

Infection of implantable defibrillators or pacemakers is a serious complication, reported with increasing frequency probably because of an increase in the total number of devices implanted due to a change in trends in the treatment of arrhythmias. This review is aimed to provide guidelines on how to deal with these infections and which method is most likely to be successful.

METHODS

This is a review of 38 patients with infected antiarrhythmic implantable devices under three different plans of therapy. There were 17 implantable cardioverter defibrillators and 21 pacemakers. In 27, infection occurred after primary implantation (15 pacers, 12 implantable cardioverter defibrillators), and in 11 after replacement (six pacers, five implantable cardioverter defibrillators). Three therapeutic plans were identified. Group I (n = 12) received intravenous antibiotics without removal of the antiarrhythmic implantable device, but with relocation to a different area or plane, and with or without the use of a topical irrigating-suction system. Group II (n = 19) had complete removal of the system, 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics, and implantation of a new unit followed by 10 more days of antibiotics. Group III (n = 7) underwent complete removal, 6 weeks of antibiotics, implantation of a new unit, and another 6 or more weeks of antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

Failure occurred in 100% of cases in group I. Groups II and III had complete clearing of infection and successful reimplantation of new systems with no recurring infections. Follow-up was 8 months to 5 years. Two deaths occurred, both in group I. Hospitalization for groups I and III was 104 days and 65 days, respectively, versus 22 days for group II. No deaths occurred in group II or III.

CONCLUSIONS

With an infected antiarrhythmic implantable device, immediate removal of the entire unit is recommended, followed by 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics, implantation of a new system, and 10 more days of postoperative antibiotics. This regimen is sufficient to cure the problem. No attempts should be made to save an infected system from removal because it endangers the patient's life, prolongs hospitalization, increases costs, and most likely will fail.

The treatment of patients with infected implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the treatment of patients with infected implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was done of the cases of 21 patients treated for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection during an 11-year period.

RESULTS

Of 723 cardioverter-defibrillator implantations (550 primary implants, 173 replacements), nine (1.2%) were complicated by early postoperative device-related infections. Late infections developed in two patients 19 and 22 months, respectively, after implantation. Ten other patients were transferred to our institution for treatment of cardioverter-defibrillator infection. The time from implantation to overt infection was 2.2 +/- 1.3 months, excluding the two late infections. The responsible organisms were Staphylococcus aureus (9), Staphylococcus epidermidis (6), Streptococcus hemolyticus (1), gram-negative bacteria (3), Candida albicans (1), and Corynebacterium (1). All patients were treated with intravenous antibiotic drugs. Total system removal was done in 15 patients and partial removal in 2; in 4, the cardioverter-defibrillator system was not explanted. There were no perioperative deaths. A new implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system was reimplanted in 7 patients after 2 to 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy. Ten patients were treated without reimplantation (2 arrhythmia operation, 8 antiarrhythmic drugs). Four patients (3 patients without explantation and 1 with partial system removal) were treated with maintenance long-term antibiotic therapy. During a mean follow-up of 21 +/- 2.8 months, no patient had clinical recurrence of infection. One patient treated with antiarrhythmic drugs without system reimplantation died suddenly.

CONCLUSIONS

Infections that involve implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems can be safely managed by removing the entire system with reimplantation after intravenous antibiotic therapy. In selected patients in whom the risk for system explantation is high and anticipated life expectancy is short, long-term antibiotic therapy to suppress low-virulence infections may represent an acceptable alternative.

Surgical management of infected permanent transvenous pacemaker systems: ten year experience

BACKGROUND

Between January 1985 and June 1995, more than 1800 consecutive patients underwent implantation of a new permanent cardiac pacemaker at our institution. Thirty-six patients (0.02%) had 45 reinterventions for infected pacemaker systems.

METHODS

in group A, 24 of 27 patients received simultaneous implantation of a new pacemaker. One had reimplantation of the same pacemaker in the same pocket, and two did not require reimplantation. The leads were retained in 19 (70%) of the patients. In group B, nine patients underwent cardiopulmonary bypass or "pursestring" surgery for removal of an infected pacemaker; a new epicardial pacemaker system was simultaneously implanted in seven patients.

RESULTS

Identification of an infectious agent failed in 17 patients (47%), and Staphylococci were found in 15 patients (42%). The time from pacemaker implantation to onset of infection ranged from 1 month to 11 years (mean 31 months; median 19 months) and the time from onset of infection to surgical treatment from 1 month to 7 years (mean 7 months; median 2 months). The mean follow-up time is 74 months (range, 1 month to 10 years; median 5 years). There were 9 reoperations in 3 patients (16%) of group A for recurrent infection of their retained leads ultimately necessitating the use of open cardiac surgery. There was no early death; six patients died late due to unrelated causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete removal of all pacemaker leads is recommended; open heart surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass is indicated in selected cases and is effective and safe.

Removal of endocardial defibrillation leads

Two patients, each with an endocardial defibrillation lead system (Endotak O62), required lead removal; one because of chronic lead infection and the second because of spurious shocks caused by lead insulation damage. Neither lead could be removed by simple traction. The defective lead was removed by a combination of catheterization techniques including a steerable ablation catheter and traction, both under general anesthesia. The lead with the insulation defect was rapidly removed with a locking stylet, suggesting that endocardial lead defibrillating leads can be removed similarly to pacemaker leads, thus avoid thoracotomy.

Catheter aided repositioning of a displaced permanent pacemaker lead

A 91-year-old woman, who had a pacemaker implanted in 1977, underwent replacement of a pulse generator and lead in 1995 because of recurrent syncope. The new lead dislodged the next day and migrated to the pulmonary artery. Because of her dependence on continued pacing, repeated resuscitation was required. Considering her advanced age and the impact of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on her general condition, we attempted catheter aided repositioning of the pacemaker lead. The procedure was technically successful; lead position was stable and optimal pacing parameters were attained. She was discharged in good condition.

Five-years experience with intravascular lead extraction. U.S. Lead Extraction Database

From December 1988 to April 1994, the extraction of 2,195 intravascular pacing leads from 1,299 patients was attempted at 193 centers. Indications were: infection (54%, including 10% septicemia), pacemaker reoperation with removal of nonfunctional or incompatible leads (40%), and other causes (6%). Extraction was attempted via the implant vein using locking stylets and dilator sheaths, via the femoral vein using snares, retrieval baskets, and sheaths, or via both approaches. Leads had been implanted for 0.2 months to 24 years (mean 56 months). At the conclusion of the intravascular procedure, 86.8% of the leads were completely removed, 7.5% were partially removed, and 5.7% were not removed. For physicians performing their first case, 12% of leads were not removed; for physicians who had performed more than 10 cases, only 2% of leads were not removed. Of the 189 leads where extraction attempts had previously failed, 75.1% were completely removed, 14.8% were partially removed, and 10.1% were not removed. Scar tissue increased in severity with implant duration, was a complicating factor, and was the main cause of failure to remove leads. Use of the femoral approach increased with implant duration (5% of leads implanted 12 months or less, 11% of leads 13 months to 3 years, 20% of leads 4-7 years, and 31% of leads 8-24 years), primarily because of increasingly abundant scarring and prior lead damage. Fatal and near fatal complications occurred in 2.5%, including 8 (0.6%) deaths (3 hemopericardium/tamponade, 1 hemothorax, 3 pulmonary embolus, 1 stroke).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)