The Fate of Nontargeted Endocardial Leads during the Extraction of One or More Targeted Leads in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

VDD Lead Extraction-Differences with Other Leads and Practical Tips in Management

Background: VDD (atrial sensing, ventricular sensing/pacing) leads are relatively rarely implanted; therefore, experience in their extraction is very limited. We aimed to investigate whether VDD lead removal may be a risk factor for the increased complexity of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) or major complications. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3808 TLE procedures (including 103 patients with VDD leads). Results: If TLE included VDD lead removal, procedure duration (lead dilation time) was prolonged, complicated extractions were slightly more common, and more advanced tools were required. This is partly due to longer implant duration (in patients with VDD systems-135.2 months; systems without VDD leads-109.3 months; p < 0.001), more frequent presence of abandoned leads (all systems containing VDD leads-22.33% and all systems without VDD leads-10.77%), and partly to the younger age of patients with VDD leads (51.74 vs. 57.72 years; p < 0.001, in the remaining patients) at the time of system implantation. VDD lead extraction does not increase the risk of major complications (1.94 vs. 2.34%; p = 0.905). Conclusions: The extraction of VDD leads may be considered a risk factor for increased procedure complexity, but not for major complications. However, this is not a direct result of VDD lead extraction but specific characteristics of the patients with VDD leads. Operator skill and team experience combined with special custom maneuvers can enable favorable results to be achieved despite the specific design of VDD leads, even with older VDD lead models.

Lead Extraction in Children and Young Adults: When is the Best Time for Lead/System Replacement?

The best strategy for lead management in children is a matter of debate, and our experiences are limited. This is a retrospective single-center study comparing difficulties and outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) implanted ich childhood and at age < 19 years (childhood-implanted-childhood-extracted, CICE) and at age < 19 (childhood-implanted-adulthood-extracted, CIAE). CICE patients-71 children (mean age 15.1 years) as compared to CIAE patients (114 adults (mean age 28.61 years) were more likely to have VVI than DDD pacemakers. Differences in implant duration (7.96 vs 14.08 years) appeared to be most important, but procedure complexity and outcomes also differed between the groups. Young adults with cardiac implantable electronic device implanted in childhood had more risk factors for major complications and underwent more complex procedures compared to children. Implant duration was significantly longer in CIAE patients than in children, being the most important factor that had an impact on patient safety and procedure complexity. CIAE patients were more likely to have prolonged operative duration and more complex procedures due to technical problems, and they were 2-3 times more likely to require second-line or advanced tools compared to children, but the rates of clinical and procedural success were comparable in both groups. The difference between the incidence of major complications between CICE and CIAE patients is very clear (MC 2.9 vs 7.0%, hemopericardium 1.4 vs 5.3% etc.), although statistically insignificant. Delay of lead extraction to adulthood seems to be a riskier option than planned TLE in children before growing up.

Transvenous Lead Extraction during Cardiac Implantable Device Upgrade: Results from the Multicenter Swiss Lead Extraction Registry

BACKGROUND

Device patients may require upgrade interventions from simpler to more complex cardiac implantable electronic devices. Prior to upgrading interventions, clinicians need to balance the risks and benefits of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), additional lead implantation or lead abandonment. However, evidence on procedural outcomes of TLE at the time of device upgrade is scarce.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the investigator-initiated multicenter Swiss TLE registry. The objectives were to assess patient and procedural factors influencing TLE outcomes at the time of device upgrades.

RESULTS

941 patients were included, whereof 83 (8.8%) had TLE due to a device upgrade. Rotational mechanical sheaths were more often used in upgraded patients (59% vs. 42.7%, p = 0.015) and total median procedure time was longer in these patients (160 min vs. 105 min, p < 0.001). Clinical success rates of upgraded patients compared to those who received TLE due to other reasons were not different (97.6% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.569). Moreover, multivariable analysis showed that upgrade procedures were not associated with a greater risk for complications (HR 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.57, p = 0.224; intraprocedural complication rate of upgraded patients 7.2% vs. 5.5%). Intraprocedural complications of upgraded patients were mostly associated with the implantation and not the extraction procedure (67% vs. 33% of complications).

CONCLUSIONS

TLE during device upgrade is effective and does not attribute a disproportionate risk to the upgrade procedure.

Incomplete Lead Removal During the Extraction Procedure: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Long-Term Survival in Infectious and Non-Infectious Cases: Analysis of 3741 Procedures

BACKGROUND

The long-term significance of lead remnants (LR) following transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remains disputable, especially in infectious patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 3741 TLEs focused on the relationship between LR and procedure complexity, complications and long-term survival.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 156 individuals with LR (4.17%), and the control group consisted of 3585 patients with completely removed lead(s). In a multivariable model, a younger patient age at CIED implantation, more CIED procedures and procedure complexity were independent risk factors for retention of non-removable LR. Although patients with LR showed better survival outcomes following TLE (log rank p = 0.041 for non-infectious group and p = 0.017 for infectious group), multivariable Cox regression analysis did not confirm the prognostic significance of LR either in non-infectious [HR = 0.777; p = 0.262], infectious [HR = 0.983; p = 0.934] or the entire group of patients [HR = 0.858; p = 0.321].

CONCLUSIONS

1. Non-removable LRs are encountered in 4.17% of patients. 2. CIED infection has no influence on retention of LRs, but younger patient age, multiple CIED-related procedures and higher levels of procedure complexity are independent risk factors for the presence of LR. 3. Better survival outcomes following TLE in patients with LRs are not the effects of their presence but younger patient and better health status.

Unexpected Procedure Difficulties Increasing the Complexity of Transvenous Lead Extraction: The Single Centre Experience with 3721 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) should be completed, even when facing difficulties which have yet to be described. The aim was to explore unexpected TLE obstacles (the circumstances of the occurrence and influence on TLE outcome).

METHODS

The retrospective analysis of a single centre database containing 3721 TLEs.

RESULTS

Unexpected procedure difficulties (UPDs) occurred in 18.43% of cases (singles in 12.20% of cases and multiples in 6.26% of cases). These included blockages in the lead venous approach in3.28% of cases, functional lead dislodgement in 0.91% of cases, and loss of broken lead fragment in 0.60% of cases. All of them, including implant vein-in 7.98% of cases, lead fracture during extraction-in 3.84% of cases, and lead-to-lead adherence-in 6.59% of cases, Byrd dilator collapse-in 3.41% of cases, including the use of an alternative prolonged the procedure but had no influence on long-term mortality. Most of the occurrences were associated with lead dwell time, younger patient age, lead burden, and poorer procedure effectiveness and complications (common cause). However, some of the problems seemed to be related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and the subsequent lead management strategy. A more complete list of all tips and tricks is still required.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) The complexity of the lead extraction procedure combines both prolonged procedure duration and the occurrence of lesser-known UPDs. (2) UPDs are present in nearly one fifth of the TLE procedures, and can occur simultaneously. (3) UPDs, which usually force the extractor to expand the range of techniques and tools, should become part of the training in transvenous lead extraction.

Disparities in transvenous lead extraction in young adults

Adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implanted at an early age constitute a specific group of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE). The aim of this study is to assess safety and effectiveness of TLE in young adults. A comparative analysis of two groups of patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction was performed: 126 adults who were 19–29 years old at their first CIED implantation (early adulthood) and 2659 adults who were > 40 years of age at first CIED implantation and < 80 years of age at the time of TLE (middle-age/older adulthood). CIED-dependent risk factors were more common in young adults, especially longer implant duration (169.7 vs. 94.0 months). Moreover younger age of patients at first implantation, regardless of the dwell lead time, is a factor contributing to the greater development of connective tissue proliferation on the leads (OR 2.587; p < 0.001) and adhesions of the leads with the heart structures (OR 3.322; p < 0.001), which translates into worse TLE results in this group of patients. The complexity of procedures and major complications were more common in younger group (7.1 vs. 2.0%; p < 0.001), including hemopericardium (4.8 vs 1.3; p = 0.006) and TLE-induced tricuspid valve damage (3.2 vs.0.3%; p < 0.001). Among middle-aged/older adults, there were 7 periprocedural deaths: 6 related to the TLE procedure and one associated with indications for lead removal. No fatal complications of TLE were reported in young adults despite the above-mentioned differences (periprocedural mortality rate was comparable in study groups 0.3% vs 0.0%; p = 0.739). Predictors of TLE-associated major complications and procedure complexity were more likely in young adults compared with patients aged > 40 to < 80 years. In younger aged patients prolonged extraction duration and higher procedure complexity were combined with a greater need for second line tools. Both major and minor complications were more frequent in young adults, with hemopericardium and tricuspid valve damage being predominant.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Risk of Collateral Lead Damage in Percutaneous Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Extraction

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the risk of collateral lead damage during cardiac implantable electronic device extraction.

BACKGROUND

With the increasing numbers of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, there has been an increase in the number of percutaneous device and lead extractions. It is unknown how often collateral damage (defined as the need for unintended lead extraction, or loss of lead's integrity or dislodgement) occurs in the planned retained leads.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 108 patients who underwent incomplete cardiovascular implantable electronic device removal at the University of California, San Diego from September 2010 to September 2015 were included. The authors established the integrity of previously functioning leads at the end of each procedure as well as on follow-up visits using parameters including lead impedance change, threshold change, drop in P- or R-wave signal amplitude, or presence of lead noise.

RESULTS

Only 4 of 143 leads (2.7%) were found to have collateral damage. One right atrial (RA) lead had a clear insulation break, the second RA lead was found dislodged, and the third RA had a constant noise. The right ventricular lead was found to have a new high pacing threshold. Collateral lead age, extracted lead implantation site, collateral lead implantation site, and mode of lead extraction (laser, traction, or rotational dilator) did not have a significant correlation with the outcome of collateral lead damage.

CONCLUSIONS

Lead extraction can be performed safely; however, there is a small risk of damaging adjacent leads. Close follow-up is needed, especially for the first few months, to assess for the reconnected leads' integrity.

Neointimal fibrotic lead encapsulation - Clinical challenges and demands for implantable cardiac electronic devices

Every tenth patient with a cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted is expected to have at least one lead problem in his lifetime. However, transvenous leads are often difficult to remove due to thrombotic obstruction or extensive neointimal fibrotic ingrowth. Despite its clinical significance, knowledge on lead-induced vascular fibrosis and neointimal lead encapsulation is sparse. Although leadless pacemakers are already available, their clinical operating range is limited. Therefore, lead/tissue interactions must be further improved in order to improve lead removals in particular. The published data on the coherences and issues related to lead associated vascular fibrosis and neointimal lead encapsulation are reviewed and discussed in this paper.