Venous access thrombosis detected by transcutaneous vascular ultrasound in patients with single-polyurethane-lead permanent pacemaker

Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis and Asymptomatic Vein Occlusion in Patients With Transvenous Leads: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims: The presence of transvenous leads for cardiac device therapy may increase the risk of venous thromboembolisms. The epidemiology of these complications has not yet been determined systematically. Therefore, this study aims to determine (I) the incidence of symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) and (II) the prevalence of asymptomatic upper extremity vein occlusion in patients with transvenous leads, both after the initial 2 months following lead implantation.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched until March 31, 2020 to identify studies reporting incidence of UEDVT and prevalence of asymptomatic vein occlusion after the initial 2 months after implantation in adult patients with transvenous leads. Incidence per 100 patient years of follow-up (PY) and proportions (%) were calculated to derive pooled estimates of incidence and prevalence.

Results: Search and selection yielded 20 and 24 studies reporting on UEDVT and asymptomatic vein occlusion, respectively. The overall pooled incidence of UEDVT was 0.9 (95% CI 0.5–1.4) per 100PY after 2 months after lead implantation. High statistical heterogeneity was present among studies (I² = 82.4%; P = < 0.001) and only three studies considered to be at low risk of bias. The overall pooled prevalence of asymptomatic upper extremity vein occlusion was 8.6% (95% CI 6.0–11.5) with high heterogeneity (I² = 81.4%; P = <0.001). Meta-regression analysis showed more leads to be associated with a higher risk of UEDVT.

Conclusion: Transvenous leads are an important risk factor for symptomatic UEDVT, which may occur up to multiple years after initial lead implantation. Existing data on UEDVT after lead implantation is mostly of poor quality, which emphasizes the need for high quality prospective research. Asymptomatic vein occlusion is present in a substantial proportion of patients and may complicate any future lead addition.

Clinical Trial Registration: (URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178136, Identifier: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178136).

Venous Obstruction in Cardiac Rhythm Device Therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A variety of complex vascular pathologies arise following the implantation of electronic cardiac devices. Pacemaker and defibrillator lead insertion may cause proximal venous obstruction, resulting in symptomatic venous congestion and the compromise of potential future access sites for cardiac rhythm lead management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Various innovative techniques to recanalize the vein and establish alternate venous access have been pioneered over the past few years. A collaborative team of electrophysiologists and vascular specialists strategically integrate the patient's vascular disease into the planning of electrophysiology procedures. When vascular complications occur after device implantation, the same team effectively manages both the resulting vascular sequelae and related cardiac rhythm device challenges. This review will outline the various vascular challenges related to device therapy and offer an effective strategy for their management.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Early Venous Thrombosis Associated with Permanent Pacemaker Leads

INTRODUCTION

Pacemaker lead implantation can cause thrombosis, which can be associated with serious local morbidity and complicated by pulmonary embolism. Few reliable estimates of the incidence of thrombosis have been reported. The contribution of established risk factors to venous thrombosis in patients with implanted pacemaker leads is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred forty-five consecutive patients n = 145) underwent routine clinical and Doppler ultrasound evaluation for thrombosis before and 3, 6, and 12 months after lead implantation. Established risk factors for venous thrombosis were assessed in detail for all patients. Clinical outcome, including clinically manifest thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, associated pacemaker lead infection, complicated reinterventions, and death, was evaluated. Thrombosis was observed in 34 (23%) of 145 patients. Thrombosis did not cause any signs or symptoms in 31 patients but resulted in overt clinical symptoms in 3 patients. The absence of anticoagulant therapy, use of hormone therapy, and a personal history of venous thrombosis were associated with an increased risk of thrombosis. The risk of thrombosis increased in the presence of multiple pacemaker leads compared to a single lead.

CONCLUSION

Established risk factors for venous thrombosis and the presence of multiple pacemaker leads contribute substantially to the occurrence of thrombosis associated with permanent pacemaker leads. Risk factor assessment prior to implantation may be useful for identifying patients at risk for thrombotic complications. Preventive management in these patients is warranted.

Endovascular management of venous thrombotic diseases of the upper torso and extremities

Central venous thrombosis in the upper torso can be either primary, occurring as a result of longstanding extrinsic compression, or secondary, resulting from an acquired intrinsic occlusive disease or foreign body. As in lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), anticoagulation therapy is the mainstay of therapy in upper torso and upper extremity DVT. However, in the presence of severely symptomatic acute thrombosis, pharmacologic and/or mechanical thrombolytic therapy represent the main invasive form of therapy for these conditions. After clearance of the acute thrombotic component, definitive management in patients with underlying anatomic abnormalities can be undertaken. Primary subclavian axillary vein thrombosis caused by extrinsic obstruction at the thoracic outlet is treated with thrombolytic therapy and anticoagulation followed by surgical decompression, whereas secondary causes of central venous obstruction and thrombosis are usually amenable to endovascular treatment with balloon angioplasty and stent placement. Postoperative interval anticoagulation is usually recommended. In addition to clinical follow-up, imaging follow-up with duplex sonography or conventional venography is usually recommended to assess the presence of restenosis and/or residual compression.

Prevalence of central venous occlusion in patients with chronic defibrillator leads

BACKGROUND

Many patients with previously implanted ventricular defibrillators are candidates for an upgrade to a device capable of atrial-ventricular sequential or multisite pacing. The prevalence of venous occlusion after placement of transvenous defibrillator leads is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of central venous occlusion in asymptomatic patients with chronic transvenous defibrillator leads.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients with a transvenous defibrillator lead underwent bilateral contrast venography of the cephalic, axillary, subclavian, and brachiocephalic veins as well as the superior vena cava before an elective defibrillator battery replacement. The mean time between transvenous defibrillator lead implantation and venography was 45 +/- 21 months. Sixteen patients had more than 1 lead in the same subclavian vein. No patient had clinical signs of venous occlusion.

RESULTS

One (3%) patient had a complete occlusion of the subclavian vein, 1 (3%) patient had a 90% subclavian vein stenosis, 2 (7%) patients had a 75% to 89% subclavian stenosis, 11 (37%) patients had a 50% to 74% subclavian stenosis, and 15 (50%) patients had no subclavian stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The low prevalence of subclavian vein occlusion or severe stenosis among defibrillator recipients found in this study suggests that the placement of additional transvenous leads in a patient who already has a ventricular defibrillator is feasible in a high percentage of patients (93%).

Superior vena cava syndrome due to permanent transvenous pacemaker electrodes: successful treatment with combined thrombolysis and angioplasty--a case report

Superior vena cava syndrome is a rare complication of permanent transvenous pacing electrodes. Multiple treatment options are available, namely thrombolytics, venoplasty, stenting, surgery, and combinations of the above, yet initially the optimal approach is uncertain. Whether plain balloon angioplasty provides durable and satisfactory long-term results is equally uncertain. The authors report a patient treated with a combination of local thrombolytic therapy and balloon venoplasty with good long-term outcome at two years of follow-up.