Mechanical power sheath mediated recanalization and lead implantation in patients with venous occlusion: Technique and results

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Transvenous Lead Extraction at the Time of Upgrade from Pacemakers to Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Upgrading from pacemakers to ICDs and CRTs is a difficult procedure, and often, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is necessary for venous access. TLE is considered riskier in patients with multiple diseases. We aimed to assess the complexity, risk, and outcome of TLE among CRT and ICD candidates.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical data from 2408 patients undergoing TLE between 2006 and 2021. There were 138 patients upgraded to CRT-D, 33 patients upgraded to CRT-P and 89 individuals upgraded to ICD versus 2148 patients undergoing TLE for other non-infectious indications.

RESULTS

The need for an upgrade was the leading indication for TLE in only 36-66% of patients. In 42.0-57.6% of patients, the upgrade procedure could be successfully done only after reestablishing access to the occluded vein. All leads were extracted in 68.1-76.4% of patients, functional leads were retained in 20.2-31.9%, non-functional leads were left in place in 0.0-1.1%, and non-functional superfluous leads were extracted in 3.6-8.4%. The long-term survival rate of patients in the CRT-upgrade group was lower (63.8%) than in the non-upgrade group (75.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading a patient from an existing pacemaker to an ICD/CRT is feasible in 100% of cases, provided that TLE is performed for venous access. Major complications of TLE at the time of device upgrade are rare and, if present do not result in death.

Lead extractions: dissecting adhesions up to the lead-tip of the right ventricle: safety and success-rates

AIMS

Goal of Transvenous Lead Extraction (TLE) is complete removal of all targeted leads, without complications. Despite counter traction manoeuvres, efficacy rates are often hampered by broken right ventricle lead (RV-lead) tips. Mechanically powered lead extraction (Evolution sheath) is effective, however safety of dissection up to the lead tip is unclear. Therefore, we examined the feasibility and safety of RV-lead extraction requiring dissection up to the myocardium.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From 2009 to 2018, all TLE in the Isala Heart Centre (Zwolle, The Netherlands) requiring the hand-powered mechanical Evolution system to extract RV-leads (n = 185) were examined from a prospective registry. We assessed 4 groups: TLE with the first generation Evolution (n = 43) with (A1,n = 18) and without (A2,n = 25) adhesions up to the myocardium and TLE with the Novel R/L type (n = 142) of sheath with (B1, n = 59) and without (B2, n = 83) adhesions up to the myocardium. Complete success rate in Group B was significantly higher than group A (96.5 vs 76.7%, p = 0.0354). When comparing the patients with adhesions up to the myocardium, total complete success is higher in the R/L group (61.1% vs 90.5%, p = 0.0067). There were no deaths. Overall major complication rates were low (2/185; 1.1%) and there was no statistically significant difference in major and minor complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Extraction strategy with the bidirectional Evolution R/L sheath for right ventricular leads with adhesions up to the myocardium is safe and feasible.

The Use of Transvenous Lead Extraction of Non-Infected Leads to Prevent Long-Term Lead-Related Complications

The aim of the investigation was to study the issue of making challenging decisions concerning abandonment or removal of non-infected superfluous leads during lead revisions or cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades.

Modified Pull-Through Technique for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Upgrades in Patients with Occluded Access Veins

The number of procedures for upgrading implantable devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy has increased considerably during the last decade. A major challenge that operators face in these circumstances is occlusion of the access vein. We have modified a pull-through method to overcome this obstacle. Six consecutive patients with occluded access veins and well-developed collateral networks underwent a procedure in which the occluded vein was recanalized by snaring the existing atrial lead via transfemoral access. Upgrading the device was successful in all patients; none had intraprocedural complications. Our experience shows that our modified pull-through technique may be a feasible alternative for upgrading cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with venous occlusion.