Optimal Management of Riata Leads with No Known Electrical Abnormalities or Externalization: A Decision Analysis

Blood use for transvenous lead extractions at a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) have increased in number due to an increased prevalence of cardiac implantable devices. Bleeding complications associated with TLEs can be catastrophic, and many institutions order blood components to be available in the procedure room. There are few studies supporting or refuting this practice. We evaluated transfusion rates for TLEs at a single, high-volume center to assess the need for having blood in the procedure room.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients undergoing TLEs from April 2010 to February 2019 were identified from our institutional database. The percentage of patients transfused intraoperatively, the number of units transfused, and the reasons for transfusion were determined from the database and by manual chart review.

RESULTS

A total of 473 patients underwent a TLE during this time frame. Of these, only 17 patients (3.6%) received a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Ten of the 17 patients received RBCs secondary to preoperative anemia. Of the remaining seven patients, only four patients received more than 2 RBC units, and only one received more than 10 RBC units. No patient received more than 2 RBC units or any plasma or platelets in the past 4 years.

CONCLUSION

Due to improvements in procedural techniques, advent of accessible remote blood allocation systems, and changes in transfusion practice (e.g., electronic crossmatch), routinely having blood components in the procedure room for every TLE may be an outdated practice for high-volume centers.

Nomenclature, Definitions, and Metrics of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Lead Management

Quality has a foundation that consists of the nomenclature, definitions, and metrics of success, failure, and complications. There is now a firm foundation for reporting outcomes and for making clinical decisions with patients and their families. This has developed from an international consensus, ratified by the four continental heart rhythm societies and by the overlapping cardiovascular, surgical, anesthesiology, and infectious disease societies. Reporting of outcomes, using these metrics and definitions, is now mandated to promote transparency and facilitate clinical decision making with patients. The best path to accomplishing this goal is to participate in a center-specific or multicenter registry.

Outcomes Associated With Extraction Versus Capping and Abandoning Pacing and Defibrillator Leads

Background:

Lead management is an increasingly important aspect of care in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices; however, relatively little is known about long-term outcomes after capping and abandoning leads.

Methods:

Using the 5% Medicare sample, we identified patients with de novo cardiac implantable electronic device implantations between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, and with a subsequent lead addition or extraction ≥12 months after the de novo implantation. Patients who underwent extraction for infection were excluded. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, device-related infection, device revision, and lead extraction at 1 and 5 years for the extraction versus the cap and abandon group.

Results:

Among 6859 patients, 1113 (16.2%) underwent extraction, whereas 5746 (83.8%) underwent capping and abandonment. Extraction patients tended to be younger (median, 78 versus 79 years; P <0.0001), were less likely to be male (65% versus 68%; P =0.05), and had shorter lead dwell time (median, 3.0 versus 4.0 years; P <0.0001) and fewer comorbidities. Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (25th, 75th percentiles, 1.0, 4.3 years), the overall 1-year and 5-year cumulative incidence of mortality was 13.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7–14.4) and 54.3% (95% CI, 52.8–55.8), respectively. Extraction was associated with a lower risk of device infection at 5 years relative to capping (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62–0.97; P =0.027). There was no association between extraction and mortality, lead revision, or lead extraction at 5 years.

Conclusions:

Elective lead extraction for noninfectious indications had similar long-term survival to that for capping and abandoning leads in a Medicare population. However, extraction was associated with lower risk of device infections at 5 years.

Cable externalization and electrical failure of the Riata family of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Riata class of defibrillator leads were placed under US Food and Drug Association (FDA) advisory as of November 2011 because of high rates of cable externalization (CE) and electrical failure (EF). The overall rates of these complications remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to systematically search the literature for rates of Riata lead failure and to perform a meta-analysis to estimate failure rates.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies examining the rates of EF, CE, and the interaction of the two. We identified 23 English language manuscripts addressing 1 or more of these questions.

RESULTS

Across 23 studies, the overall CE rate was 23.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.0%-27.6%). The overall EF rate was 6.3% (95% CI 4.7%-8.2%). The presence of CE was associated with a more than 6-fold increase in the rate of EF compared to no CE (17.3% [95% CI 11.2%-25.9%] vs 2.7% [95% CI 1.4%-5.2%], respectively). The rate of CE was 3-fold higher for 8Fr leads compared to 7Fr leads, but rates of EF were similar (4.6%; 95% CI 3.2-6.6] and 3.9%; 95% CI 2.4-6.1], respectively). Rates of both CE and EF were higher in dual coil vs single coil leads, but confidence intervals overlapped.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, rates of CE in Riata leads are substantial. While CE is associated with a significant increase in the risk of EF, the incidence of EF without externalization is not trivial.