Trends, indications and outcomes of cardiac implantable device system extraction: a single UK centre experience over the last decade

Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction of very old leads

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Four years of experience in plastic surgery of anterior abdominal wall hernias with mesh implants made of titanium thread]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the results of using titanium thread mesh implants in the treatment of anterior abdominal wall hernias.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This article evaluates the titanium thread mesh implant used by us in the treatment of 240 patients with anterior abdominal wall hernias; describes the features of this type of implants and the technical features of various types of operations using them.

RESULTS

The overall rate of postoperative complications was 2.9%. Hernia recurrence was observed in 2.4% of patients after laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a mesh implant made of titanium thread did not reveal any specific complications for this implant. At the stage of gaining experience with a mesh implant made of titanium thread, technical difficulties may occur when placing and fixing it, which increases the duration of surgery.

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: 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.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are complex medical problems that are increasingly encountered. They are associated with significant morbidity and mortality with tremendous economic cost. The current review will emphasize the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this clinical entity using the relatively limited evidence that is currently available. Because there is a paucity of high quality evidence regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections, this review will attempt to summarize the best evidence as well as to suggest, when possible, paradigms for care. The topic of CIED infections is a dynamic one as the scope of CIED continues to widen. Furthermore, there are promising advancements in CIED technology which may help reduce its occurrence the future. Unfortunately, significant gaps in knowledge remain, and definitive recommendations regarding CIED infections and future studies should be directed at improving our ability to prevent infections.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Infections in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Diagnosis and Management in a Referral Center

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Infections in cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasing due to the expansion of the indications of these devices. The management of some aspects is controversial. Here, we report our broad experience.

METHODS

Between 1985 and 2015, 325 infections (196 local and 129 systemic) were registered; 28.5% of them were referred from other centers: 229 pacemakers, 69 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and 27 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy. The follow-up was at least 1 year after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Percutaneous traction (PCT) was the most frequent procedure (n=280) in local (n=166) and systemic infections (n=114), with complete extraction of the system in 82.5% of the patients, clinical success in 89%, and few complications (2 deaths attributable to the technique). Overall mortality was 1% in local infections and 8% in systemic infections. After 212 complete PCT, a new device was placed in 209: of these, a contralateral system was implanted in the same procedure in 152 (73%) and in a second procedure in 57, with no differences in relapses (2 in the 1-stage procedure, and 1 in the 2-stage procedure).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous traction in experienced hands has good results with very few complications. It is possible to perform contralateral implantation of the new device on the same day without increasing the risk of relapse.

Trends in Use and Adverse Outcomes Associated with Transvenous Lead Removal in the United States

Background—

Transvenous lead removal (TLR) has made significant progress with respect to innovation, efficacy, and safety. However, limited data exist regarding trends in use and adverse outcomes outside the centers of considerable experience for TLR. The aim of our study was to examine use patterns, frequency of adverse events, and influence of hospital volume on complications.

Methods and Results—

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified 91 890 TLR procedures. We investigated common complications including pericardial complications (hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or pericardiocentesis), pneumothorax, stroke, vascular complications (consisting of hemorrhage/hematoma, incidents requiring surgical repair, and accidental arterial puncture), and in-hospital deaths described with TLR, defining them by the validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code. We specifically assessed in-hospital death (2.2%), hemorrhage requiring transfusion (2.6%), vascular complications (2.0%), pericardial complications (1.4%), open heart surgery (0.2%), and postoperative respiratory failure (2.4%). Independent predictors of complications were female sex and device infections. Hospital volume was not independently associated with higher complications. There was a significant rise in overall complication rates over the study period.

Conclusions—

The overall complication rate in patients undergoing TLR was higher than previously reported. Female sex and device infections are associated with higher complications. Hospital volume was not associated with higher complication rates. The number of adverse events in the literature likely underestimates the actual number of complications associated with TLR.

Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE)

Infections related to implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are increasing in incidence in the USA and are likely to increase in the UK, because more devices are being implanted. These devices have both intravascular and extravascular components and infection can involve the generator, device leads and native cardiac structures or various combinations. ICED infections can be life-threatening, particularly when associated with endocardial infection, and all-cause mortality of up to 35% has been reported. Like infective endocarditis, ICED infections can be difficult to diagnose and manage. This guideline aims to (i) improve the quality of care provided to patients with ICEDs, (ii) provide an educational resource for all relevant healthcare professionals, (iii) encourage a multidisciplinary approach to ICED infection management, (iv) promote a standardized approach to the diagnosis, management, surveillance and prevention of ICED infection through pragmatic evidence-rated recommendations, and (v) advise on future research projects/audit. The guideline is intended to assist in the clinical care of patients with suspected or confirmed ICED infection in the UK, to inform local infection prevention and treatment policies and guidelines and to be used in the development of educational and training material by the relevant professional societies. The questions covered by the guideline are presented at the beginning of each section.

Safety of transvenous lead extraction according to centre volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex invasive procedure and the experience of the operator and the team is a major determinant of procedural outcomes.

AIM

Because of very limited data available on minimum procedural volumes to enable training and ongoing competency for TLEs, we performed a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the outcomes of TLE in the centres with low, medium, and high volume of procedures.

METHODS

Of the 280 papers initially retrieved until February 2013, 66 observational studies met inclusion criteria and were included in at least one stratified meta-analysis: 17 were prospective studies; 47 had a retrospective design; and 2 were defined 'experience studies'. We included only articles published after the introduction of laser technique (year 1999). We divided the studies in low, medium, and high volume centres utilizing either the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) or Lexicon classification criteria.

RESULTS

When meta-analyses were carried out separately for the studies with larger and smaller sample sizes, either using EHRA or Lexicon classification criteria, no clear differences emerged in the combined rate of major complications or intraoperative deaths. In contrast, both minor complications and mortality at 30 days decreased as centre volume increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In our meta-analysis of observational studies, patients who have been treated in higher volume centres have a lower probability of minor complications and death at 30 days regardless of the infection rate, length of lead duration, type of device, and type of extraction.

From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction

Percutaneous lead extraction is considered a safe and effective procedure, although published results derive primarily from cohort studies. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years' experience in this field, to give an objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. Moreover, the subsequent metaregression analysis enabled the identification of the main factors influencing these results: patient age, presence of leads in situ for more than 1 year, presence of device infection and use of laser sheath. These findings are significant in order to improve our extraction approach, data reporting and future research.

Initial experience of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead extraction with the new GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheaths

OBJECTIVES

Laser lead extraction is a challenging procedure, especially in patients with old or multiple pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads. The mechanical force is a leading cause of complications during the extraction procedure. Use of new laser sheaths, which deliver a rate of 80 pulses per second, may probably reduce intraoperative adverse events by reduction of extraction force.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and April 2013, 76 PM and ICD leads were treated in 38 patients using GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheaths. Indications for lead removals were pocket infection (42.1%), septicaemia or endocarditis (23.7%), lead dysfunction (31.6%) and upgrade from PM to ICD (2.6%). Data on procedural success rates, intra- and postoperative outcomes, as well as 30-day mortality were collected into a database and analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 62.0 ± 17.7 years (range 18-83), and 73.7% were male. The mean time from initial lead implantation was 96.0 ± 58.3 months (range 24-288). Thirty-seven (48.7%) PM and 39 (51.3%) ICD leads had to be extracted. The mean procedural time was 68.3 ± 27.3 min (range 35-115). Seventy-two of 76 leads (94.8%) were completely removed, partial removal was achieved in 2 (2.6%) leads and a failure of extraction occurred in 2 (2.6%) leads. The overall complication rate was 5.2%, including one major (superior vena cava perforation) (2.6%) and one minor (pocket haematoma) (2.6%) complication. No death occurred during the 30-day follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheath allows safe and effective removal of chronically implanted PM and ICD leads, combining high procedural success with low complication rates.

Transcutaneous lead implantation connected to an externalized pacemaker in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator/pacemaker infection and pacemaker dependency

AIMS

Systemic cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a serious complication, especially in patients with pacemaker (PM) dependency. In those patients after infectious device removal temporary pacing is necessary, to obtain adequate haemodynamics. In this study, a new therapy option with temporary pacing by ipsilateral implantation of a new active-fixation right ventricular (RV)-lead was evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between September 2009 and November 2011, infectious lead removal was performed in 17 patients with systemic CIED infection. Temporary pacing was achieved by simultaneous implantation of a new active-fixation RV-lead, which then was connected extracorporally to the old CIED device. Antibiotic therapy was initiated. When laboratory infection parameters were in normal range and blood culture samples showed negative results, new CIED was implanted on contralateral side and temporary RV-lead was removed. Mean patients' age was 71.3 ± 9.1 years. Mean C-reactive protein values were 79.3 mg/dL, and mean leucocytes counts were 12.6 × 10(3). After lead extraction, temporary pacing was necessary in all patients due to severe bradycardia. Mean duration of temporary pacing was 12.7 (6-24) days. No major procedure-related peri- or post-operative adverse events occurred. Mean time of hospitalization was 20.8 (10-48) days. Mean follow-up time was 21.1 months (12-36), showing survival rate of 100% and freedom from reinfection in all patients.

CONCLUSION

Ipsilateral implantation of a temporary active-fixation RV-lead connected to an externalized PM and pursued antibiotic therapy seems to be a good option for patients with CIED infection and PM dependency, showing no temporary pacing-related complications and no reinfection after mean follow-up time of 21.1 months.