Value of a Joint Cardiac Surgery-Cardiac Electrophysiology Approach to Lead Extraction

Is cardiopulmonary bypass standby still required for laser lead extractions?

Objective

Over the last two decades there has been an increase in the number of cardiac implantable electronic devices and consequently, there has also been an increased need for lead extractions. Fibrotic attachments develop between the lead and the venous and cardiac structures that may require the use of a laser to mobilize the lead. Cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS) have traditionally provided backup for surgical emergencies for these extractions. This study evaluates the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing transvenous laser lead extractions (TLE) and determines if CTS are still needed for backup.

Methods

A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing laser lead extractions at a single academic center. Lead extractions using only laser sheaths were analyzed. The clinical characteristics, complications, and mortality of the patients were evaluated.

Results

One hundred and twenty-one patients underwent TLEs from January 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2018. The majority were male (N = 80, 66.1%), and the average age was 66.48 ± 14 years. The indication for removal was either laser lead malfunction or infection. A total of 30 patients (24.8%) had complications postoperatively including wound hematomas, superficial infections, and arrhythmias. The average length of stay was 9 ± 12 for all the patients in the study. 2 patients (1.6%) had injuries that required emergency surgical repair with injuries to the posterior superior vena cava and right ventricle. Both patients survived the initial injury with one patient was discharged home on day 4 and the other succumbing to his injuries on postoperative day 20.

Conclusion

Although the incidence of surgical emergencies is rare the morbidity and mortality for TLE require that surgical backup be available.

The valuable interaction among cardiac surgeon and electrophysiologist for transvenous rotational mechanical lead extraction

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that Evolution RL bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath (Cook Medical,USA) is an effective and safe technique for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). We reported our experience with the bidirectional rotational mechanical tools using a multidisciplinary approach highlighting the value of a joint cardiac surgeon and electrophysiologist collaboration.

METHODS

The study population comprised 84 patients (77%male;mean age 65±18 years) undergoing TLE.After multidisciplinary evaluation, a combined procedure was considered.

RESULTS

The main indication for TLE was infection in 54 cases (64%).Overall,152 leads were extracted with a mean implant duration of 94±63 months (range 12-421).Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, and lead removal with clinical success rate were 91.6 % (77/84),97.6% (82/84), and 98.6%(150/152), respectively.Eighteen combined procedure were performed in 12 patients (14%), such as "hybrid approach" (n = 2) or TLE concomitant to:1) transcatheter aspiration procedure for large vegetation (n = 8); 2) left ventricular assistance device implantation as bridge to cardiac transplantation (n = 1); 3) permanent pacing with epicardial leads (n = 6); 4) tricuspid valve replacement (n = 1).One major complication (1.2%) and 11 (13%) minor complications were encountered.No injury to the superior vena cava occurred and no procedure-related deaths were reported. During a mean time follow-up of 21±18 months, 17 patients (20%) died.They were more often diabetics (P = 0.02), and they underwent TLE more often for infection (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the finding that excellent outcomes can be achieved in performing TLE of chronically implanted leads by using the Evolution RL bidirectional rotational mechanical sheath and a multidisciplinary team approach involving both electrophysiologist and cardiac surgeon as first line operators. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Analysis of a 10-year period of lead removal in a referral centre

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to analyse all lead extraction procedures (transvenous or open surgery) performed in our centre and the short- and long-term follow-up data from these patients.

METHODS

All lead extractions performed from 2008 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed for patient characteristics and indications for device implantation; indications for lead extraction; techniques used; peri- and postprocedural complications and short- and long-term follow-up data.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients (282 leads) were included [age 70 (62-78) years; 72% men]. The median follow-up time was 57 (25-90) months. Patients with lead explants were excluded. The most common indication for lead removal was infection (77%). A surgical approach was necessary in 14 patients (9%) owing to unsuccessful transvenous removal (n = 3), large vegetation in the lead (n = 4), concomitant valvular endocarditis (n = 2), other indications for open surgery (n = 4) and complicated transvenous removal (n = 1). Removal was tried for 282 leads. Of those, 256 were completely removed. Clinical success was achieved in 155 individual patients (98%). Complications occurred in 6 patients: 3 persistent infections, 1 stroke and 2 blood vessel ruptures. The procedure-related mortality rate was 2% (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Lead removal was associated with a high success rate and low all-cause complication and mortality rates. Emergency surgery because of acute complications was rare, and open-heart surgery was most frequently elective and not associated with a worse outcome.

Minimally Invasive Techniques to Avoid Sternotomy in Complex Lead Extraction Cases

Cardiac device lead extractions have increased in frequency over the past several years. Although most of these procedures are successfully performed through a percutaneous approach, certain cases may be unmanageable using conventional methods. The traditional approach for such complex cases has been median sternotomy. However, four surgical techniques offer a less-invasive alternative. These include the transatrial approach, the subxiphoid approach, the left minithoracotomy/thoracoscopy, and the ministernotomy. In the present study, we reviewed data from patients who underwent minimally invasive, surgical lead extraction at our institution from January 2003 to October 2017 using an ongoing, prospective registry. Summary statistics were generated for age, sex, device extracted, lead dwell time (years), procedure indication, major/minor complications and procedural success as defined by the 2017 Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and survival at discharge. Between January 2003 and October 2017, 14 cases at our center were managed via a transatrial approach, whereas 11 involved the subxiphoid approach, 19 involved a left minithoracotomy or thoracoscopy, and one involved a ministernotomy. For the transatrial approach, all cases were classified as procedural successes and all patients were discharged alive. Additionally, for the subxiphoid approach, all cases were deemed procedural successes, whereas survival at discharge was 90.9%. For the left minithoracotomy/thoracoscopy, all cases were procedural successes and survival at discharge was 94.7%. Lastly, the ministernotomy was successfully used to remove an infected, retained lead fragment from the innominate vein. In conclusion, at our institution, the transatrial approach, the subxiphoid approach, the left minithoracotomy/thoracoscopy, and the ministernotomy were used as minimally invasive, surgical approaches that represent fairly safe and effective alternatives to median sternotomy in complex cases unamenable to management via conventional, percutaneous approaches to lead extraction.

Overview of Lead Management

Lead management describes a comprehensive approach to cardiac implantable electronic device lead utilization, encompassing lead and device selection, vascular access, implant techniques, handling lead failures and recalls, managing infectious and other complications, and performing device and lead extraction. Device and lead selection should be based on the latest guidelines and the available data to choose the optimal device system for each patient. Lead extraction is a highly specialized procedure and should be carried out by a team of personnel extensively trained in the procedure at centers with cardiac surgical support.

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.

Surgical and Hybrid Lead Extraction

Surgical and hybrid lead extraction has developed considerably over the past several decades. Although transvenous lead extraction is the standard approach to remove infected or malfunctioning cardiac implantable electronic device leads, surgical approaches may be necessary in complex cases not amenable to transvenous lead extraction or in cases that involve concomitant pathologies, such as tricuspid valve regurgitation. We describe our experience with 4 minimally invasive surgical approaches to lead extraction as well as our experience with hybrid open heart surgery and transvenous lead extraction as an option for patients who present with concomitant conditions.

Pearls of Wisdom for High-Risk Laser Lead Extractions: A Focused Review

Due to new indications and improved technology, the incidence of laser lead extraction (LLE) has significantly increased over the past years. While LLE has been well studied and proven to be safe and effective, only few studies are geared toward the anesthesiologist's role during high-risk LLEs. This article utilized both a focused review and authors' experience to investigate anesthetic protocols during LLEs. Through this review, we recommend best practices for the anesthesiologist including appropriate procedure location, onsite availability of a cardiac surgeon, availability of a cardiopulmonary bypass machine, and intraoperative use of echocardiography to detect and address potential complications during high-risk LLEs.