Predictors of Complications of Endovascular Chronic Lead Extractions from Pacemakers and Defibrillators: A Single-Operator Experience

Transvenous lead extraction safety and efficacy in infected and noninfected patients using mechanical-only tools: Prospective registry from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a well-established treatment option for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) complications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TLE in CIED infection and non-CIED infection patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent TLE between 2016 and 2022 entered the EXTRACT Registry. Models of prediction were constructed for periprocedural clinical and procedural success and the incidence of major complications, including death in 30 days.

RESULTS

The registry enrolled 504 patients (mean age 66.6 ± 12.8 years; 65.7% male). Complete procedural success was achieved in 474 patients (94.0%) and clinical success in 492 patients (97.6%). The total number of major and minor complications was 16 (3.2%) and 51 (10%), respectively. Three patients (0.6%) died during the procedure. New York Heart Association functional class IV and C-reactive protein levels defined before the procedure were independent predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days in CIED infection patients. The time since the last preceding procedure and platelet count before the procedure were independent predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days in non-CIED infection patients.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE is safe and successfully performed in most patients, with a low major complication rate. CIED infection patients demonstrate better periprocedural clinical success and complete procedural success. However, CIED infection predicts higher 30-day mortality compared with non-CIED infection patients. Predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days, differ between CIED infection and non-CIED infection patients.

Safety and efficacy of combined dilation/stenting of venous abnormalities, including complete obstructions, during lead extractions in patients with congenital heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Management of transvenous leads in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) can be complicated by venous obstructions and residual shunts. We present our experience performing concurrent lead extraction and dilation/stenting of venous pathways, including patients with complete venous obstruction.

METHODS

All cases of concurrent lead extraction and recanalization of vena cavae/baffles between 2017 and 2021 at Boston Children's Hospital were retrospectively included and reviewed for safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Eight patients, 4 female, median 38.5 years of age (range 16.7-49 years) and 81.6 kg weight (range 41.3-97.8 kg) at time of procedure were included. All patients had CHD, a majority (n = 7) having transposition of the great arteries palliated via atrial switch. All leads were removed in their entirety, with most patients having two leads extracted (n = 7). Median lead dwell time was 13.8 years (range 3.6-35.3 years). Three patients had complete obstructions, three required stenting of their innominate veins and three required recanalization of their femoral vessels. Median procedure time was 9.8 h (range 5.4-12.8 h). Complications included blood transfusion (n = 2), arrhythmia (n = 3), pleural effusion (n = 1), and pressure ulcer (n = 1). There were no cardiac perforations, venous tears, or deaths.

CONCLUSION

Lead extraction along with dilation and stenting of venous anomalies, though long in duration, proved effective with minimal complications. This combined procedure can safely and effectively resolve complete obstructions secondary to transvenous leads.

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

LECOM (Lead Extraction COMplexity): A New Scoring System for Predicting a Difficult Procedure

(1) Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) can become far more complex when unanticipated difficulties arise. The aim was to develop a simple scoring system that allows for the prediction of the difficulty and complexity of this significant procedure. (2) Methods: Based on analysis of 3741 TLE procedures with and without complicating factors (extended fluoroscopy time, need for second-line instruments, and advanced techniques and instruments), a five-point Complex Indicator of Difficulty of (TLE) Procedure (CID-TLEP) scale was developed. Two or more points on the CID-TLEP scale indicate a higher level of procedure complexity. (3) Results: Patient age below 51 years at first CIED implantation, number of abandoned leads, number of previous procedures, passive fixation and multiple leads to be extracted, and a ratio of dwell time of oldest lead to patient age during TLE of >0.13 are significant predictors of higher levels of lead extraction complexity. The ROC analysis demonstrates that a point total (being the sum of the odds ratios of the above variables) of >9.697 indicates a 21.83% higher probability of complex TLE (sensitivity 74.08%, specificity 74.46%). Finally, a logistic function was calculated, and we constructed a simple equation for lead extraction complexity that can predict the probability of a difficult procedure. The risk of complex extraction (as a percentage) is calculated as [1/(1 + 55.34 · 0.754X)] · 100 (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The LECOM score can effectively predict the risk of a difficult transvenous lead extraction procedure, and predicting the probability of a more complex procedure may help clinicians in planning lead removal and improving patient management.

Lead Management in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

Pediatric patients with congenital heart disease present unique challenges when it comes to cardiac implantable electronic devices. Pacing strategy is often determined by patient size/weight and operator experience. Anatomic considerations, including residual shunts, anatomic obstructions and barriers, and abnormalities in the native conduction system, will affect the type of CIED implanted. Given the young age of patients, it is important to have an "eye on the future" when making pacemaker/defibrillator decisions, as one can expect several generator changes, lead revisions, and potential lead extractions during their lifetime.

Lead Extraction-Indications, Procedure, and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation has steadily increased in the United States owing to increased life expectancy, better access to health care, and the adoption of updated guidelines. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an invasive technique for the removal of CIED devices, and the most common indications include device infections, lead failures, and venous occlusion. Although in-hospital and procedure-related deaths for patients undergoing TLE are low, the long-term mortality remains high with 10-year survival reported close to 50% after TLE. This is likely demonstrative of the increased burden of comorbidities with aging. There are guidelines provided by various professional societies, including the Heart Rhythm Society, regarding indications for lead extraction and management of these patients. In this paper, we will review the indications for CIED extraction, procedural considerations, and management of these patients based upon the latest guidelines.

Radiographic predictors of failure of simple manual traction of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Extraction of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads could be a difficult procedure due to fibrous tissue around the lead and anatomical variations. In this report, we present our experience in the radiographic predictors of failure of simple manual traction (SMT) in patients with dual-coil ICD requiring lead extraction (LE).

METHODS

Between January 2017 and February 2021, 103 leads were removed in 65 consecutive patients; 65 (63.1%) were dual-coil ICD leads, 22 (21.4%) were atrial, and 16 (15.5%) were coronary sinus leads. Patient-based and procedural data were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Clinical and procedural characteristics were compared and radiographic predictors of failure of SMT of ICD leads were assessed. Projected anteroposterior (AP) lead tortuosity was measured and lead slack score was estimated on chest X-ray (CXR).

RESULTS

Simple manual traction failed in 27 (42%) of the ICD leads. Ottawa slack score (odds ratio [OR] 2.368, 95% CI [1.261-4.447]; P = 0.007), AP lead tortuosity > 1.10 (OR 7.477, 95% CI [1.718-35.542]; P = 0.007), and number of previous interventions (OR 6.016, 95% CI [1.184-30.557]; P < 0.030) were found to be independently related to the failure of SMT. Receiver-operator characteristic curve analysis yielded an AP lead tortuosity cutoff value of > 1.10 for predicting the failure of SMT. The area under the curve was 0.744; the 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.617 to 0.871 (P = 0.001), with a sensitivity of 63% and a specificity of 73%.

CONCLUSION

Simple manual traction success in our study varied based on radiographic lead-related parameters. Before planning the procedure, increased AP lead tortuosity in vasculature and higher lead slack score can be easily determined on CXR and may be associated with more fibrous adherences, the complexity of the LE, and failure of SMT.

Predictors for adverse events during cardiac lead extraction - Experience from a large single centre

BACKGROUND

As the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has increased in recent years, the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has also steadily increased. However, the TLE procedure could lead to serious complications and even death. Clinical decision-making tools are necessary for predicting these adverse events, but the appropriate tools have not yet been developed.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the possible predictors and develop a clinical model to predict TLE related adverse events.

METHODS

All the patients who were admitted to our cardiac center for TLE from January 2014 to January 2021 were included in this study. The patient information, device baseline characteristics, procedure-related information, complications and outcomes were recorded. Independent predictors of TLE related adverse events were identified by univariate, LASSO and multivariate analysis. A nomogram for predicting these adverse events was developed based on these independent predictors. Calibration and decision curve analysis were conducted to evaluate the nomogram.

RESULTS

One thousand and one hundred patients were included in this study, 778 (70.7%) were male and the median age was 68 years old. A total of 2,208 leads were extracted and 2.01±0.74 leads were extracted per procedure. Fifty-five patients (5%) developed adverse events including minor complications (2.4%), major complications (2.3%) and death (0.27%). Seven independent predictors for TLE related adverse events were identified and selected to establish the nomogram including BMI, female gender, hypoalbuminemia, number of extracted leads>3, longest dwell time of the extracted leads and manual traction. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for the prediction model was 0.774. Calibration curve and decision curve analysis showed that the nomogram had good prediction performance.

CONCLUSION

TLE related adverse events are some of the key issues that concern clinicians. We have identified seven independent factors and established a predictive model that may help clinicians identify at-risk patients and create better plans for lead extraction.

Lead Extraction at a Pediatric/Congenital Heart Disease Center: The Importance of Patient Age at Implant

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a single pediatric/congenital heart disease (CHD) center.

BACKGROUND

Data on TLE in pediatric and CHD patients are limited.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study evaluating TLE from 2008 to 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients underwent TLE with 162 leads removed (including 38 high-voltage leads). Median age at lead implantation was 13 years (range 0.6-61.8 years), with a median age at extraction of 21.6 years (6.4-64.3 years). Median lead age was 7.2 years (1.0-35.3 years). Successful extraction occurred in 110 (97%) patients, 159 (98%) leads. Complex extraction was needed for 120 leads; 52 (44%) using laser alone, 27 (23%) mechanical sheath alone, and 21 (18%) using both. Femoral extraction was used for 19 (16%) leads. Risk factors for complex extraction were ≥2 leads extracted (odds ratio: 3.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-9.36; P = 0.021), lead within the right ventricle (odds ratio: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.2-6.5; P = 0.017), and a combination of younger patient age at implant and older lead age at extraction, with patients ≤12 years of age at implant and leads ≥7 years of age having an odds ratio: of 10.1 (95% CI: 2.21-45.9; P = 0.003). Major complications occurred in 5 (4.4%) of patients, with no mortality, but a high incidence of tricuspid valve injury.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE can be performed successfully and safely in a pediatric and CHD center. Patient age at lead implantation, not age at extraction, is an important predictor of needing a complex extraction, with younger patients at implant and older leads at extraction having the highest risk.

An Alternative to Transvenous Lead Extraction in Selected Patients with CIED Infections—A Retrospective Outcome Study

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implants are rising in an older, more co-morbid population. The prevalence of CIED infection ranges from 1–4%. Whilst complete extraction of all transvenous hardware is recommended for infected, eroded, or pre-eroding CIEDs, this approach is not without risk and may be unacceptable to some patients. Long-term data on a more conservative strategy is lacking. We report on our experience of conservative management with pocket revision as a primary strategy in carefully selected patients. Method: A retrospective review of all CIED revision procedures was undertaken at a large tertiary center, over a 7-year period, with a mean follow-up timeframe of 39 months. Results: A total of 86 patients underwent 96 revision procedures; 7 patients required further revisions and 13 went on to undergo CIED extraction by the end of the follow-up period. The overall rate of mortality at 12 months was 8.1%, increasing to 24.4% at the end of the follow-up period. Conclusion: Our data provide important outcome information on an alternative strategy to lead extraction in carefully selected patients where the risk of extraction is perceived to be unacceptable. The absence of systemic infection appears to predict better outcomes than previously reported, and over two-thirds of patients remained complication-free at 12 months.

The role of transesophageal echocardiography in predicting technical problems and complications of transvenous lead extractions procedures

Background

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is a useful tool in preoperative evaluation of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE).

Hypothesis

Echocardiographic phenomena may determine the difficulty and safety of the procedure.

Methods

Data from 936 transesophageal examinations (TEE) performed at a high volume center in patients awaiting TLE from 2015 to 2019 were assessed.

Results

TEE revealed a total of 1156 phenomena associated with the implanted leads in 697 (64.85%) patients, including: asymptomatic masses on endocardial leads (AMEL) (58.65%), vegetations (12,73%), fibrous tissue binding the lead to the vein or heart wall (33.76%), lead‐to‐lead binding sites (18.38%), excess lead loops (19.34%), intramural penetration of the lead tip (16.13%) and lead‐dependent tricuspid dysfunction (LDTD) (6.41%). Risk factors for technical difficulties during TLE in multivariate analysis were: fibrous tissue binding the lead to atrial wall (OR = 1.738; p < 0.05), to right ventricular wall (OR = 2.167; p < 0.001), lead‐to‐lead binding sites (OR = 1.628; p < 0.01) and excess lead loops (OR = 1.488; p < 0.05). Lead‐to‐lead binding sites increased probability of major complications (OR = 3.034; p < 0.05). Presence of fibrous tissue binding the lead to the superior vena cava (OR = 0.296; p < 0.05), right atrial wall (OR = 323; p < 0.05) and right ventricular wall (OR = 0.297; p < 0.05) reduced the probability of complete procedural success, whereas fibrous tissue binding the lead to the tricuspid apparatus decreased the probability of clinical success (OR = 0.307; p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Careful preoperative TEE evaluation of the consequences of extended lead implant duration (enhanced fibrotic response) increases the probability of predicting the level of difficulty of TLE procedures, their efficacy and risk of major complications.

Safety and efficacy of transvenous mechanical lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads

AIMS

Optimal management of redundant or malfunctioning leads is controversial. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with abandoned leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive TLE procedures performed in our centre from January 2009 to December 2017 were considered. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of mechanical TLE in patients with abandoned (Group 1) compared to non-abandoned (Group 2) leads. We analysed 1210 consecutive patients that required transvenous removal of 2343 leads. Group 1 accounted for 250 patients (21%) with a total of 617 abandoned leads (26%). Group 2 comprised 960 patients (79%) with 1726 leads (74%). The total number of leads (3.0 vs. 2.0), dwelling time of the oldest lead (108.00 months vs. 60.00 months) and infectious indications for TLE were higher in Group 1. Clinical success was achieved in 1168 patients (96.5%) with a lower rate in Group 1 (90.4% vs. 98.1%; P < 0.001). Major complications occurred in only 9 patients (0.7%), without significant differences among the two groups. The presence of one or more abandoned leads [odds ratio (OR) 3.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-11.19; P = 0.037] and dwelling time of the oldest lead (OR 1.01 for a month; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; P < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of clinical failure.

CONCLUSION

Transvenous mechanical lead extraction is a safe procedure also in high-risk settings, as patients with abandoned leads. Success rate resulted a bit lower, especially in the presence of abandoned leads with long implantation time.

Comparison of acute and long-term outcomes of Evolution® and TightRail™ mechanical dilator sheaths during transvenous lead extraction

BACKGROUND

Powered transvenous lead extraction (TLE) tools are commonly required to remove the leads with long implant duration due to fibrotic adhesions. However, comparative data are lacking among different types of TLE tools.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of two different rotational mechanical dilator sheaths in retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent TLE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 566 lead extractions from 302 patients using TightRail™ (333 lead extractions from 169 patients) and Evolution^® (233 lead extractions from 133 patients) mechanical dilator sheaths were performed between July 2009 and June 2018. Acute and long-term outcomes of study groups were compared. There is no statistically significant difference between Evolution^® and TightRail™ groups in procedural success (93.9% vs. 94%), clinical success (99.2% vs. 98%), and major complications (3.8% vs. 1.2%), respectively (p > .05). In multivariate regression analysis, lead dwell time, the number of extracted leads, and baseline leukocyte count were found as independent predictors of procedural success (p < .05). During the median follow-up of 36.6 (0.2-118) months, all-cause mortality was observed in 73 patients (25.6% in the Evolution^® vs. 23.1 in the TightRail™ group, p > .05). Chronic renal disease, heart failure, and coagulopathy were shown as independent predictors of all-cause mortality in multivariate regression analysis (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

TLE using TightRail™ or Evoluation^® mechanical dilator sheaths was a safe and effective therapeutic option. Both mechanical dilator sheaths showed similar efficacy, safety, and all-cause mortality at acute and long-term follow-up of patients who underwent TLE.

Lead age as a predictor for failure in pediatrics and congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Pediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients have a high rate of transvenous (TV) lead failure.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether TV lead age can aid risk assessment for lead failure to guide the decision of whether a lead should be replaced or reused at the time of a generator change.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients <21 years old undergoing TV device implant from 2000 to 2014 at our institution. Patient, device, and lead variables were collected. Leads were compared in groups based on how many generator changes were completed.

RESULTS

A total of 393 leads in 257 patients met inclusion criteria, 60 leads failed (15%). Failed leads were more likely to have not yet undergone generator change (p = .048). CHD (p = .045), Tendril lead type (p = .02) and silicone insulation (p = .02) were associated with failure. In multivariate analysis, younger leads (p = .022), number of generator changes (p = .003), CHD (p = .005) and silicone insulation (p = .004) remained significant while Tendril lead type did not (p = .052). Survival curves show an early decline around 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Lead failure rate in pediatric and CHD patients is high. Leads that have not yet undergone a generator change were more likely to fail in this cohort. The strategy of serial replacement based on lead age needs further research to justify in this population.

Risk Factors and Long-Term Survival of Octogenarians and Nonagenarians Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has become a frequently used tool for the management of complications related to pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. However, it is still a matter of debate whether the lead extraction procedure is a safe treatment choice in the elderly.

METHODS

We collected the clinical information from 3,810 patients undergoing TLE in 2 high-volume centers (Poland and Italy) between 2006 and 2017. We tested risk factors, effectiveness, safety and long-term survival in 3 groups of patients: those aged 80-89.99 years, ≥90 years and 30-79.99 years.

RESULTS

Lower BMI, lower levels of hemoglobin and more comorbidities characterized the patients, whose ages ranged from 80 to 89.99 years. Those aged ≥90 years most often had single-chamber pacemakers. Octogenarians and nonagenarians were more often undergoing TLE due to infectious indications (57.19 and 74.29 vs. 45.35% in younger individuals). Lead age and the number of leads extracted were comparable in the 3 groups. In octogenarians, leads were more often removed using standard extraction techniques: simple traction and mechanical dilatators, whereas in nonagenarians TLE was more complex. The duration of the procedure was shorter in older patients, while clinical and procedural effectiveness was similar to that in younger individuals. The rate of major complications related to TLE did not differ between octogenarians and younger subjects (2.0 vs. 1.38%, p = ns), and the number of procedure-related risk factors was smaller in older people. Nonagenarians did not develop any major complication related to TLE. Long-term mortality after TLE was similar among octogenarians and nonagenarians (39.67 and 40.00%) but higher than in younger patients (24.41; p < 0.001 and 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lead extraction procedures appear effective and safe in octogenarians and nonagenarians, comparable to younger individuals. Procedure-related risk in the elderly is not associated with most of the typical risk factors encountered in younger subjects, but only with the higher number of pacemaker, implantable cardiac defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device procedures before TLE. Long-term survival after TLE was found to be similar among octogenarians and nonagenarians being about 60% at over 3 years of follow-up. Age alone should not be considered a risk factor for the occurrence of major complications or procedure-related death, and therefore it should not prevent candidacy for TLE.

Lead Extraction for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess the utility of transvenous lead extraction for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

BACKGROUND

The use of transvenous lead extraction for the management CIED infection in patients with a durable LVAD has not been well described.

METHODS

Clinical and outcomes data were collected retrospectively among patients who underwent lead extraction for CIED infection after LVAD implantation at Duke University Hospital.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 patients (n = 6 HVAD; n = 15 HeartMate II; n = 6 Heartmate III) underwent lead extraction for infection. Median (interquartile range) time from LVAD implantation to infection was 6.1 (2.5 to 14.9) months. Indications included endocarditis (n = 16), bacteremia (n = 9), and pocket infection (n = 2). Common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 10), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 7), and Enterococcus faecalis (n = 3). Sixty-eight leads were removed, with a median lead implant time of 5.7 (3.6 to 9.2) years. Laser sheaths were used in all procedures, with a median laser time of 35.0 s (17.5 to 85.5s). Mechanical cutting tools were required in 11 (40.7%) and femoral snaring in 4 (14.8%). Complete procedural success was achieved in 25 (93.6%) patients and clinical success in 27 (100%). No procedural failures or major adverse events occurred. Twenty-one patients (77.8%) were alive without persistent endovascular infection 1 year after lead extraction. Most were treated with oral suppressive antibiotics after extraction (n = 23 [82.5%]). Persistent infection after extraction occurred in 4 patients and was associated with 50% 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvenous lead extraction for LVAD-associated CIED infection can be performed safely with low rates of persistent infection and 1-year mortality.

Outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic device transvenous lead extractions performed in centers without onsite cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

While major complications associated with CIED lead extractions are uncommon, they carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality in the absence of surgical intervention. However, there is limited data on the differences in outcomes of these procedures between centers with and without on-site CS support. The present study examined outcomes of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extractions according to admitting hospitals' cardiac surgery (CS) facilities.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample for CIED lead extraction procedures, stratified by hospitals' CS facilities into two groups; on-site and off-site CS. Logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the adjusted odds (aOR) of procedure-related complications in off-site CS centers.

RESULTS

In 221,606 procedures over an 11-year-period, CIED lead extractions were increasingly undertaken in on-site as opposed to off-site CS centers (Onsite CS 2004 vs. 2014: 78.2% vs. 90.4%, p < 0.001) during the study period. In comparison to on-site CS group, patients admitted to off-site CS group were older, less comorbid, and experienced lower adjusted odds of major adverse cardiovascular events (0.72 [0.67, 0.77]), mortality (0.60 [0.52, 0.69]), procedure-related bleeding (0.48 [0.44, 0.54]) and complications (thoracic: 0.81 [0.75, 0.88]; cardiac: 0.45 [0.38, 0.54]) (p < 0.001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Our national analysis demonstrates that transvenous CIED lead extractions are being increasingly undertaken in centers with on-site CS surgery, in compliance with international guideline recommendations. Patients managed with lead extractions in on-site CS centers are more comorbid and critically ill compared to those admitted to off-site CS centers, and remain at a higher risk of procedure-related complications.

Transvenous lead extraction procedures in women based on ESC-EHRA EORP European Lead Extraction ConTRolled ELECTRa registry: is female sex a predictor of complications?

AIMS

Female sex is considered an independent risk factor of transvenous leads extraction (TLE) procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of TLE in women compared with men.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A post hoc analysis of risk factors and effectiveness of TLE in women and men included in the ESC-EHRA EORP ELECTRa registry was conducted. The rate of major complications was 1.96% in women vs. 0.71% in men; P = 0.0025. The number of leads was higher in men (mean 1.89 vs. 1.71; P < 0.0001) with higher number of abandoned leads in women (46.04% vs. 34.82%; P < 0.0001). Risk factors of TLE differed between the sexes, of which the major were: signs and symptoms of venous occlusion [odds ratio (OR) 3.730, confidence interval (CI) 1.401-9.934; P = 0.0084], cumulative leads dwell time (OR 1.044, CI 1.024-1.065; P < 0.001), number of generator replacements (OR 1.029, CI 1.005-1.054; P = 0.0184) in females and the number of leads (OR 6.053, CI 2.422-15.129; P = 0.0001), use of powered sheaths (OR 2.742, CI 1.404-5.355; P = 0.0031), and white blood cell count (OR 1.138, CI 1.069-1.212; P < 0.001) in males. Individual radiological and clinical success of TLE was 96.29% and 98.14% in women compared with 98.03% and 99.21% in men (P = 0.0046 and 0.0098).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of TLE was lower in females than males, with a higher rate of periprocedural major complications. The reasons for this difference are probably related to disparities in risk factors in women, including more pronounced leads adherence to the walls of the veins and myocardium. Lead management may be key to the effectiveness of TLE in females.

Echocardiographic assessment of residuals after transvenous intracardiac lead extraction

Detection of residual fibrotic tissue, called ghosts, after lead extraction is a new phenomenon in cardiology. This paper aims at describing the phenomenon of ghosts and determining their characteristic features. The study group consisted of 580 consecutive patients who underwent transvenous lead extraction (TLE) due to local infection, endocarditis and a superfluous lead. Each patient was clinically examined with the application of transthoracic echocardiography and transesophageal echocardiography directly before and after TLE. In the study population ghosts were detected in 110 patients (19%), and in 470 cases (81%) fibrotic tissue residuals were not found. Ghosts were most often located along the originally implanted lead's route. Longer ghosts were found after the removal of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and dual chamber pacing (DDD) devices. The local infection and infective endocarditis are associated with a larger number of ghosts revealed after the removal procedure (p = 0.006). The type of the implanted device: CRT/ICD/double chamber pacemaker/single chamber pacemaker, similar to the number of leads, did not impact on the number of the detected ghosts. The relationship between abrasions of the leads and the presence of ghosts proved significant, however (p = 0.043). TLE is associated with the presence of fibrotic tissue residuals in approx. 19% of patients. Indications for lead extraction due to local infection and endocarditis yielded significantly more cases of ghosts than in the entire patient population. The presence of abrasions is a good predictor for the presence of ghosts on the leads.

Effect of Prior Sternotomy on Outcomes in Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background:

A history of open-heart surgery has been a heavily debated topic in transvenous lead extraction. This study evaluates the impact of prior sternotomy on transvenous lead extraction outcomes.

Methods:

Data for all patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction at a tertiary referral center were prospectively gathered from 2004 to 2017. Relevant clinical information was compared between patients with a history of sternotomy before transvenous lead extraction and those without. After considering baseline differences, multivariate regression, and propensity-matched analysis were performed. Outcome variables included major and minor complication rates, clinical success, and in-hospital mortality as defined by the 2017 Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement.

Results:

Of 1480 patients in the study period, 455 had a prior sternotomy. When compared with patients with no prior sternotomy, those with prior sternotomy were more likely to be older, male, and present with more comorbidities and leads targeted for extraction. No statistical differences were identified in major and minor complication rates ( P =0.75, P =0.41), clinical success rate ( P =0.26), and in-hospital mortality ( P =0.08). In patients with prior sternotomy, there were no instances of pericardial effusion after extraction. Prior sternotomy was not an independent predictor of clinical or procedural outcomes. No associations were elucidated after propensity-matched analysis.

Conclusions:

In a large, single-center series, no differences in clinical or procedural outcomes were elucidated between patients with a history of sternotomy and those without. Patients with sternotomies before lead extraction who experienced vascular or cardiac perforations clinically presented with hemothoraces rather than pericardial effusions.

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.

Transvenous Extraction and Removal of Pacing Leads Placed after Cardiac Transplantation

There is an increasing prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) due to expanding adoption and availability of these evidence-based therapies. With the increased prevalence of these life-saving devices, there has also been an increased demand for lead removal and lead extraction. Understanding the specific subgroups of patients at high risk for complications during and after lead extraction has become imperative to properly manage endovascular CIED leads. There have been multiple published studies describing clinical variables that predict adverse outcomes in CIED system extractions; however, the risk of complications in leads placed after cardiac transplantation has not specifically been addressed to date. We present four cases of transvenous extraction and removal of pacing leads placed after cardiac transplantation. There were no major complications related to extraction in these four cases; however, three of the four patients died within one year after the procedure. While the etiology of death in these cases seemed to be unrelated to the extraction procedure, the indications for extraction (infection in the setting of immunosuppression and calcineurin-associated ESRD and poor sensing/capture possibly secondary to chronic rejection and/or frequent right heart biopsies) likely contributed at least indirectly to the subsequent death.

Risk Factors Predicting Complications of Transvenous Lead Extraction

Objective

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the gold standard in the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED)-related complications. Knowledge of TLE risk factors is very important.

Methods

Clinical data from 1915 patients undergoing TLE at the Reference Center between 2006 and 2015 were analyzed. The effects of clinical and procedure-related factors on the development of major (MJC) and minor (MIC) complications and survival after TLE were evaluated.

Results

MJC were caused mainly by lead implant duration, presence of abandoned leads, multiple procedures preceding TLE, and any technical problem during TLE. Of clinical factors female gender and anemia increased the risk of MJC. MIC were reported in patients with the first implantation of CIED under the age of 30 and after sternotomy analysis of 30-day survival after procedure demonstrated a significant effect of clinical factors and lead dwell times, previous unsuccessful TLE, and MIC.

Conclusions

Efficacy and safety of TLE depend mainly on procedure-related factors. This knowledge is essential for preventing MJC and MIC. Mortality at 30 days following TLE is mainly associated with the clinical factors; however, there was also a significant effect of lead dwell time and periprocedural complications on the short-term prognosis of patients undergoing TLE.

Cardiac and Vascular Injuries Sustained During Transvenous Lead Extraction

The rise in indications for cardiac implantable electronic devices has necessitated the development of tools for removal of the electrodes that connect the heart to these externally located pacemakers and defibrillators. After implant of a cardiac electrode, variable but progressive fibrous adhesion occurs. Removal of these adhesions can cause devastating complications with high risk of mortality if not treated surgically in a highly expeditious and appropriate manner. This article describes the incidence, risk factors, and diagnosis of these injuries followed by discussion of recent evidence for use of superior vena cava balloon occlusion, and conventional surgical repair of these injuries.

Anesthesia Considerations for Lead Extraction

The role of the anesthesiologist in lead extraction procedures is multifaceted and highlights the collaborative, multidisciplinary teamwork needed to ensure patient safety and procedural success in these complex cases. Thorough preoperative evaluation and identification of high-risk characteristics enable the anesthesiologist to tailor a comprehensive intraoperative and postoperative care plan for each case. Institutional practices may vary but anesthetic management typically includes general anesthesia with an endotracheal tube, invasive measurement of arterial blood pressure, vascular access for rapid volume expansion, echocardiographic monitoring, preparation for blood transfusion, and initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass in the event of an emergency.

Total laser cycles-a measure of transvenous lead extraction difficulty

BACKGROUND

Several variables have been identified as predictors for difficult or complicated transvenous lead extraction (TLE), including age and number of implanted leads, as well as patient's age; however, a standard measure of TLE difficulty has not been described.

OBJECTIVE

Total laser cycles (TLCs) delivered during laser-assisted TLE is an objective variable that could reflect the difficulty of TLE. This study investigated whether TLC is correlated with known predictors of difficult TLE.

METHODS

In a retrospective study of TLE procedures using the laser sheath, we analyzed TLC delivered and compared it to established predictors of procedural failure and complications.

RESULTS

Of 166 patients undergoing TLE, the laser sheath (SLS II or Glidelight, Spectranetics Inc.,) was used as the primary extraction sheath in 130 patients, and 100 patients had complete TLC data available. The mean age of the oldest lead (AOL) was 7.1 ± 3.2 years with a median of 6.91 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.48-16.69) years, and 1.6 ± 0.7 leads (range, 1-4) were extracted per procedure. Two thirds of procedures involved ICD leads. Clinical success was 99%, with one patient (1%) experiencing a major complication. Median TLC delivered was 1165 (IQR, 567-2062; range, 49-9522). TLC was positively correlated with AOL (r = 0.227, p = 0.023), and the combined age of leads was extracted (r = 0.307, p = 0.002). TLC was also positively correlated with number of leads extracted per procedure (ρ = 0.227, p = 0.024). There was a non-significant negative trend towards correlation between TLC and patient's age (r = -0.112, p = 0.268).

CONCLUSION

TLC showed significant correlation with known predictors of difficulty during TLE using the laser sheath. TLC is an objective method to report the difficulty of TLE and could usefully be reported in future series of laser lead extractions.

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.

Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Clinical Commentary for Anesthesiologists

With increasing use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, the need for lead extractions has increased to an annual volume of more than 10,000 extractions worldwide. This article provides a focused clinical commentary on the perioperative management, identification, and treatment of life-threatening complications associated with lead extractions. In addition, a summary of indications, techniques, and lead extraction complications is provided. Although uncommon, lead extractions are associated with a consistent rate of major procedure-related complications and mortality. Major life-threatening complications include vascular laceration, cardiac avulsion, hemothorax, pericardial effusion, and cardiac arrest. Comprehensive preoperative risk assessment and adequate planning and preparedness are crucial to decreasing all procedure-related adverse events. The location of the procedure (electrophysiology suite v hybrid operating room) and the nature of cardiac surgical backup are determined after meticulous risk stratification. In addition to decisions on vascular access, invasive monitoring, and modality of rhythm support, transesophageal echocardiography plays a crucial role in early diagnosis, timely management, and potential prevention of these complications.

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Approach for Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Feasible Technique in High-Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the overall safety, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remains a challenging procedure with inherent risks, where surgery can still be required in elective cases. In this study, we report our experience with a minimally invasive "hybrid" approach, defined as a procedure performed by an electrophysiologist with the support of a cardiac surgeon in the same operative session.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reported 12 cases of planned hybrid lead extraction; minithoracotomy and thoracoscopy were performed on 10 (83%) and 2 (17%) patients, respectively. A total of 25 leads out of 27 (median lead age 19 years) were successfully extracted with laser, mechanical or combined transvenous sheath. In 3 patients, the direct monitoring of vascular and myocardial integrity allowed for prompt treatment of potential vascular injury during the lead extraction maneuvers. Mean in-hospital stay was 4 ± 2 days. There were no major intraoperative complications and no deaths occurred after 30 days' follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid approach, with minithoracotomy or thoracoscopy, is feasible and it might increase the safety in the most challenging TLE procedures: the minimally invasive surgical intervention allows for continuous monitoring of the critical cardiac structures and prompt treatment of potential complications.

Lead Extraction Considerations for the Referring Cardiologist

The population of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) continues to grow due to increasing indications in an aging population and breakthroughs in both the medical and the surgical care of patients with heart disease. As a result, there has been a growing need for device and lead extractions due to the growing population of patients with CIEDs and the subsequent need for system upgrades or revisions because of complications, infections, and lead advisory alerts.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Added Complexity and Suboptimal Outcomes With Previously Abandoned Leads

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the impact of previously abandoned leads on the clinical management of cardiac device infections, notably transvenous lead extraction and subsequent clinical course.

BACKGROUND

The population of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices continues to grow with a disproportionate increase in device infections, which are invariably life threatening. A potentially complicating issue is the widely practiced strategy of device lead abandonment at the time of system revision, change, or upgrade, which is affecting an increasing number of patients.

METHODS

The study assessed the impact of previously abandoned leads in a prospectively maintained registry of consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous extraction of infected cardiac devices at the Cleveland Clinic between August 1996 and September 2012. The primary clinical endpoint was complete procedural and clinical success defined as the successful removal of the device and all lead material from the vascular space, in the absence of a major complication.

RESULTS

Of 1,386 patients with infected cardiac devices, 323 (23.3%) had previously abandoned leads. Failure to achieve the primary endpoint occurred more frequently in patients with abandoned leads (13.0% vs. 3.7%; p < 0.0001). This was primarily due to retention of lead material (11.5% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001), which was associated with poor clinical outcomes including higher rates of 1-month mortality (7.4% vs. 3.5% in those without lead remnants). Lead extraction procedures in patients with previously abandoned leads were longer (p < 0.0001), with longer fluoroscopy times (p < 0.0001), and more likely to require specialized extraction tools (94.4% vs. 81.8%; p < 0.0001) or adjunctive rescue femoral workstations (14.9% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001). Procedural complications occurred more frequently in patients with previously abandoned leads (11.5% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.0003), which was true for both major (3.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.009) and minor complications (7.7% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Previously abandoned leads complicate the management of cardiac device infections, leading to worse clinical outcomes.

Classification and Surgical Repair of Injuries Sustained During Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background—

Injuries to cardiac and venous structures during pacemaker and defibrillator lead extraction are serious complications that have been studied poorly. The incidence of these injuries is unknown but likely underestimated. No systematic multicenter review of these injuries or their management has been undertaken.

Methods and Results—

We interrogated our mandatory administrative database for all excimer laser extractions that sustained a cardiac or venous injury in the province of British Columbia. Injuries were classified according to presentation and compared with respect to nature of injury, type of repair, utilization of cardiopulmonary bypass, and outcome. Of 1082 excimer laser extractions over 19 years, 33 sustained an injury (3.0%). The majority of injuries occurred in women (21/33; 63.6%), and median age of oldest lead extracted was 10.8 (7.5, 12.2) years. A type 1 presentation, defined as circulatory collapse, was found in 12/33 patients (36.4%). A type 2 presentation, defined as progressive hypotension responsive to treatment, was found in 20/33 patients (60.6%). Over half the patients had a moderate or large injury, and cardiopulmonary bypass was required in 13 patients with extensive injury. Despite the presence of devastating injuries, the immediate availability of aggressive salvage measures resulted in a survival of 87.9% of patients at 30 days.

Conclusions—

The immediate availability of a cardiovascular surgeon, perfusionist, and cardiopulmonary bypass pump facilitates lifesaving repair of injuries sustained during laser lead extraction. The size and complexity of injury correlates closely with the presentation, blood loss, and need for cardiopulmonary bypass to facilitate repair.

[Percutaneous lead extraction. Complications and their management]

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous lead extraction represents one of the most difficult and challenging interventions in the therapy with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Despite the progress in outcome and safety of these procedures in the last decade, the first published results of the ELECTRa registry point out that the risk of life-threatening complications should not be underestimated. Therefore, pre-operative screening for indications, present infections, pacemaker dependency, age and type of implanted leads, previous cardiac surgery and presence of anatomic variations are prerequisite to assess the individual operation risk.

RESULTS

Apart from the decision for any particular operative approach, the risk-adjusted settings should be selected in order to enable intraoperative escalation of extraction methods, if needed. A good theoretical knowledge of potential perioperative problems and complications as well as the intraoperative use of TEE enables early detection and management of complications. Furthermore, preoperative arrangements with other professionals and a team approach in emergency management enable fast and structured action when needed, thus, reducing mortality in case of life-threatening complications.