Transfemoral access when superior venous approach is not feasible equals overall success of permanent pacemaker implantation. Ten-year series

The long-term outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic devices implanted via the femoral route

Background

Conventional superior access for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is not always possible and femoral CIEDs (F‐CIED) are an alternative option when leadless systems are not suitable. The long‐term outcomes and extraction experiences with F‐CIEDs, in particular complex F‐CIED (ICD/CRT devices), remain poorly understood.

Methods

Patients referred for F‐CIEDs implantation between 2002 and 2019 at two tertiary centers were included. Early complications were defined as ≤30 days following implant and late complications >30 days.

Results

Thirty‐one patients (66% male; age 56 ± 20 years; 35% [11] patients with congenital heart disease) were implanted with F‐CIEDs (10 ICD/CRT and 21 pacemakers). Early complications were observed in 6.5% of patients: two lead displacements. Late complications at 6.8 ± 4.4 years occurred in 29.0% of patients. This was higher with complex F‐CIED compared to simple F‐CIED (60.0% vs. 14.3%, p = .02). Late complications were predominantly generator site related (n = 8, 25.8%) including seven infections/erosions and one generator migration. Eight femoral generators and 14 leads (median duration in situ seven [range 6–11] years) were extracted without complication.

Conclusions

Procedural success with F‐CIEDs is high with clinically acceptable early complication rates. There is a notable risk of late complications, particularly involving the generator site of complex devices following repeat femoral procedures. Extraction of chronic F‐CIED in experienced centers is feasible and safe.

EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Wire countertraction for sheath placement through stenotic and tortuous veins: The “body flossing” technique

Background

Innominate vein stenosis and venous tortuosity are common findings during cardiac implantable electronic device upgrades or replacements and present a challenge to the implanting physician. Various techniques have been described to facilitate lead placement, including serial dilation, balloon venoplasty, and percutaneous access medial to the stenosis, each with its own benefits and risks.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the wire countertraction (“body flossing”) technique to facilitate sheath placement through tortuous and stenotic vessels.

Methods

Patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device procedures requiring the body flossing technique due to inability to place vascular sheaths over the wire through stenoses or tortuosity were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical characteristics, procedural equipment, and outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Simultaneous countertraction was successful in all attempted cases, including 8 patients with stenoses and 2 with tortuosity. In 2 of the stenosis cases, venoplasty had previously failed. No complications occurred.

Conclusion

Simultaneous countertraction (body flossing) is an effective tool to overcome venous stenosis and tortuosity that are amenable to wire advancement but not to vascular sheaths. It seems to be a safe and effective alternative to other techniques used in these scenarios.

Vein Management for Cardiac Device Implantation

Transvenous approaches for pacemaker and defibrillator lead insertion offer numerous advantages over epicardial techniques. Although the cephalic, axillary, and subclavian veins are most commonly used in clinical practice, they each offer their own set of advantages and disadvantages that leave their usage dependent on patient anatomy and physician preference. Alternative methods using the upper and lower venous circulation have been described when these veins are not available or practical for lead insertion. Until current technology is superseded by leadless pacing systems, the search for the optimal lead insertion technique continues.

Transvenous pacemaker implantation after the bidirectional Glenn operation for patients with complex congenital disease

INTRODUCTION

The bidirectional Glenn operation for congenital heart disease produces anatomical constraints to conventional transvenous pacemaker implantation. An iliac approach, although not previously described in this population, is potentially a preferable alternative to a thoracotomy for epicardial pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A single-center retrospective review was performed for all patients that underwent transvenous pacemaker implantation following the bidirectional Glenn operation with partial biventricular repair. Follow-up data, implant indications, and techniques were recorded. Five patients underwent a transvenous iliac approach (median age 26.9 years, interquartile range [IQR] 25.8-27.6). Pacing indications included AV block in 3 patients (2 requiring cardiac resychronization therapy) and sinus node dysfunction in 2. Implanted leads were atrial in 4 and ventricular in 3 (1 of the latter was placed in the coronary sinus). In two cases, transvenous leads were tunneled to a preexisting epicardial abdominal generator. Median follow-up was 4.1 years (range 1.0-16.7 years). One patient underwent device revision for lead position-related groin discomfort; a second patient developed atrial lead failure following a Maze operation and underwent lead replacement by the iliac approach. Patients were not routinely anticoagulated postprocedure given lead position in the subpulmonary circulation. At last follow-up, all patients were alive. One patient underwent heart transplantation 6 months after implant with only partial resolution of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-iliac pacemaker placement may be an effective alternative to surgery for patients requiring permanent pacing after the Glenn operation.