A Modified Transvenous Single Mechanical Dilatation Technique to Remove a Chronically Implanted Active-Fixation Coronary Sinus Pacing Lead

Overcoming the current issues surrounding device leads: reducing the complications during extraction

INTRODUCTION

The implantation rate of cardiac implantable electronic devices has consistently increased in the last 20 years, as have the related complication rates. The most relevant issue is the removal of pacing and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, which a few months after implantation tend to develop intravascular fibrosis, often making extraction a challenging and risky procedure. Areas covered: The transvenous lead extraction (TLE) scenario is constantly evolving. TLE is a key procedure in lead management strategies. Many efforts have been made to develop new TLE approaches and techniques allowing a safe and effective procedure for patients. The increasing rate of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations and of CIED related complications highlight the importance of TLE. Lead related- and patient-related factors may change the future of extractions. We review the current status of TLE, focusing on the strategies available to perform the optimal procedure in the right patient and reducing procedure related complications. Expert commentary: Understanding the importance of an accurate TLE risk stratification is mandatory to optimize the procedural risk-to-benefits ratio. The use of adequate tools, techniques and approaches, and appropriate training are cornerstones for the achievement of safer procedures.

Coronary Venous Lead Extraction

The increasing number of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices implanted, coupled with the increasing incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, has led to a greater need for extraction of coronary venous pacing leads. The objectives of this study were to review the indications, techniques and published results of coronary venous lead extraction. In this study, we searched PubMed using the search terms "lead extraction," "coronary sinus," "coronary venous," "pacing," and "cardiac resynchronization therapy" for relevant papers. The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched, and personal experience was drawn upon. Published success rates and complications were found to be similar to those reported for non-coronary venous leads in experienced centers. However, reimplantation success differs and can be limited by vessel occlusion postextraction. The available active fixation coronary sinus lead (Attain Starfix™; Medtronic, MN, USA) is a particularly complex lead to extract, whereas limited data on the newer active fixation leads (Attain Stability™, Medtronic, MN, USA) suggest that they are less challenging to remove. The study concluded that coronary venous lead extraction presents unique challenges, especially reimplantation, that require special consideration and planning to overcome.

Starfix lead extraction: Clinical experience and technical issues

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of the Starfix coronary sinus (CS) active-fixation lead may be challenging, due to undeployment of fixation lobes and venous occlusion. We report our experience in Starfix TLE, in comparison with previous data. A 78-year-old male, implanted in 2009 with Starfix lead, was referred to our institution for TLE, due to infective endocarditis with lead-associated vegetations. The tip of Starfix lead was located in distant, anterior position, in the great cardiac vein, close to patent left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending artery anastomosis, and first-choice surgical removal had a prohibitive operative risk. Conventional dilatation beyond CS ostium, as well as the use of a standard delivery catheter, was ineffective. An off-label modification of the delivery, by cutting the distal soft tip, was successful. However, the tip of the lead fragmented and was trapped in the innominate vein. Then a gooseneck snare grasped the fragment, allowing complete retrieval. TLE of Starfix leads may be particularly challenging, especially when its tip is located in a distant anterior location. In these cases, important help may be obtained by dilatation within the CS, by means of conventional or modified delivery catheters. Only experienced operators, sometimes with non-conventional techniques, should perform TLE of Starfix leads. .

Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction

Expanded indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy and the increasing incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection have led to an increased need for coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction. The CS presents unique anatomical obstacles to successful lead extraction. Training and facility requirements for CS lead extraction should mirror those for other leads. Here we review the indications, technique, and results of CS lead extraction. Published success rates and complications are similar to those reported for other leads, although multiple techniques may be required. Re-implantation options may be limited, which should be incorporated into pre-procedural decision making.

Multicenter experience with transvenous lead extraction of active fixation coronary sinus leads

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Active fixation coronary sinus (CS) leads limit dislodgement and represent an attractive option to the implanter. Although extraction of passive fixation CS leads is a common and frequently uncomplicated procedure, data regarding extraction of chronically implanted active fixation CS leads are limited.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing active fixation CS lead extraction at six centers. Patient and procedural characteristics, indications for extraction, use of extraction sheath (ES) assistance, and outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

Between January 2009 and February 2011, 12 patients underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of Medtronic StarFix® lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). The cohort was 83% male with mean age 71 ± 14 years. Average implant duration was 14.2 ± 5.7 months (2.3-23.6). All leads but one were removed for infectious indications (67% systemic infection). At the time of explant, the fixation lobes were completely retracted in only one of the 12 cases and ES assistance was required for lead removal in all cases (58% laser, 25% cutting, 25% mechanical, and 25% femoral). The majority of cases required advancement of the sheath into the CS (75.0%) and often into a branch vessel (41.7%). One lead could not be removed transvenously and required surgical lead extraction. There were no major complications. Examination of the leads after extraction frequently revealed significant tissue growth into the fixation lobes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although TLE of active fixation CS leads can be a safe procedure in select patients and experienced hands, powered sheaths and aggressive techniques are frequently required for successful removal despite relatively short implant durations. This raises significant concern regarding future TLE of active fixation CS leads with longer implant durations.

Large, single-center experience in transvenous coronary sinus lead extraction: procedural outcomes and predictors for mechanical dilatation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate procedural outcomes of coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction, focusing on predictors and need for mechanical dilatation (MD) in the event that manual traction (MT) is ineffective.

METHODS

The study assessed results in 145 consecutive patients (age 69 ± 10 years; 121 men)--a total of 147 CS pacing leads--who underwent transvenous CS lead removal between January 2000 and March 2010.

RESULTS

All leads but one (99%) (implantation time 29 ± 25 months) were successfully removed. MT was effective in 103 (70%), and MD was necessary in the remaining 44 (30%) procedures. In multivariate analyses, unipolar design (odds ratio [OR] 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-7.7; P = 0.005) and noninfective indication (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-13, P = 0.002) were independent predictors for MD (P < 0.0001), with a predictive trend for prior cardiac surgery (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.98-5.26; P = 0.06). Five (3.4%) complex procedures required a transfemoral vein approach (TFA) or repeat procedure. No deaths occurred, and there was one major complication (0.7%), cardiac tamponade, after MT. No complication predictors were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

CS leads were safely and effectively removed in nearly all patients, and 70% were removed with MT alone; 30% required MD. Preoperative predictors suggesting the need for MD or TFA were noninfective indication and unipolar lead design. Complications were rare, and there was no predictable pattern among MT or MD removal techniques.