Outcomes 1 Year After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Abandonment Versus Explantation for Unused or Malfunctioning Leads: A Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

When pacing or defibrillator leads become redundant: Extract or abandon?

The 2017 Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus paper on lead management and extraction did not express a preference for either extracting or abandoning pacing or defibrillator leads that are dysfunctional or superfluous after an upgrade (hereafter referred to as redundant leads). However, no randomized or even nonrandomized trials show a better patient outcome with extraction. Many experienced centers currently advise patients to have redundant leads removed to prevent more complicated procedures after years of abandonment. According to the literature, however, not all abandoned leads need to be extracted as >90% will have an uneventful follow-up. As immediate extraction of redundant leads has a small but significant risk, this will generate more adverse events at the population level than when extraction is limited to the patients with future lead complications, even considering a higher extraction risk at that time. Lead extraction is also limited to specialized centers and often necessitates expensive tools, in contrast to abandoning leads, which can be safely performed by any experienced device specialist without additional cost.

Long-term outcomes with abandoning versus extracting sterile leads: A 10-year population-based study

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of sterile lead management strategies of lead abandonment (LA) or transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remain unclear.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of a population residing in southeastern Minnesota with follow-up at the Mayo Clinic and its health systems. Patients who underwent LA or TLE of sterile leads from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2011, and had follow-up for at least 10 years or until their death were included.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included in the study with 153 patients who underwent LA and 19 who underwent TLE for sterile leads. Indications for subsequent lead extraction arose in 9.1% (n = 14) of patients with initial LA and 5.3% (n = 1) in patients with initial TLE, after an average of 7 years. Moreover, 28.6% of patients in the LA cohort who required subsequent extraction did not proceed with the extraction, and among those who proceeded, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure. Subsequent device upgrades or revisions were performed in 18.3% of patients in the LA group and 31.6% in the TLE group, with no significant differences in procedural challenges (5.2% vs. 5.3%). There was no difference in 10-year survival probability among the LA group and the TLE group (p = .64).

CONCLUSION

An initial lead abandonment strategy was associated with more complicated subsequent extraction procedures compared to patients with an initial transvenous lead extraction strategy. However, there was no difference in 10-year survival probability between both lead management approaches.

Impact of infective versus sterile transvenous lead removal on 30-day outcomes in cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. This study sought to evaluate the impact of TLR on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with and without CIED infection.

METHODS

From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, we utilized the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess patients who underwent TLR. We categorized TLR as indicated for infection, if the patient had a diagnosis of bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis during the initial admission. Conversely, if none of these conditions were present, TLR was considered sterile. The impact of infective vs sterile indications of TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied.

RESULTS

Out of the total 25,144 patients who underwent TLR, 14,030 (55.8%) received TLR based on sterile indications, while 11,114 (44.2%) received TLR due to device infection, with 40.5% having systemic infection and 59.5% having isolated pocket infection. TLR due to infective indications was associated with a significant in-hospital mortality (5.59% vs 1.13%; OR = 5.16; 95% CI 4.33-6.16; p < 0.001). Moreover, when compared with sterile indications, TLR performed due to device infection was associated with a considerable risk of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism and stroke (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.23-4.47, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the conversion to open heart surgery (1.72% vs. 1.47%, p < 0.111), and infection was not an independent predictor of cardiac (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29) or vascular complications (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.73-1.72) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Higher in-hospital mortality and rates of thromboembolic events associated with TLR resulting from infective indications may warrant further pursuing this diagnosis in patients.

Cephalic Vein Cutdown Is Superior to Subclavian Puncture as Venous Access for Patients with Cardiac Implantable Devices after Long-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and subclavian vein puncture (SVP) are the most commonly used access sites for transvenous lead placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Limited knowledge exists about the long-term patency of the vascular lumen housing the leads.

METHODS

Among the 2703 patients who underwent CIED procedures between 2005 and 2013, we evaluated the phlebographies of 162 patients scheduled for an elective CIED replacement (median of 6.4 years after the first operation). The phlebographies were divided into four stenosis types: Type I = 0%, Type II = 1-69%, Type III = 70-99%, and Type IV = occlusion. Due to the fact that no standardized stenosis categorization exists, experienced physicians in consensus with the involved team made the applied distribution. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of stenosis Type III or IV in the CVC group and in the SVP group.

RESULTS

In total, 162 patients with venography were enrolled in this study. The prevalence of high-degree stenosis was significantly lower in the CVC group (7/89, 7.8%) than in the SVP group (15/73, 20.5%, p = 0.023). In the CVC group, venographies showed a lower median stenosis (33%) than in the SVP group (median 42%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that the long-term patency of the subclavian vein is higher after CVC than after SVP for venous access in patients with CIED.

Long-term outcomes of abandoned leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the long-term outcomes of abandoned leads (ALs) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of ALs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study reviewed a single-center CIED registry of 2962 procedures performed from 1984-2018 and identified 130 patients with AL (AL group). We matched 2 controls without AL (by age, sex, device type, and device revision/removal date) to each patient with AL (n = 260) and compared CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality between groups using a Cox proportional hazard model analysis.

RESULTS

For a mean follow-up period of 11.2 ± 8.2 years, 14 (3.6%), 7 (1.8%), and 143 (36.7%) patients had a CIED-related infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or experienced all-cause mortality, respectively. The AL group had more comorbidities than the control group. Lead malfunction was the most common cause of abandonment (64.6%). After adjustment for covariates, no significant intergroup differences were noted in the risks of infection, venous thrombosis/stenosis, or all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-8.25; aHR 1.18; 95% CI 0.25-5.64; aHR 1.26; 95% CI 0.89-1.80, respectively). Patients with multiple ALs had increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality vs controls (aHR 8.61; 95% CI 2.13-34.84; aHR 2.42; 95% CI 1.17-5.00, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a single AL showed similar risks of CIED-related infections, venous thrombosis/stenosis, and all-cause mortality as those without ALs, whereas those with multiple ALs showed increased risks of infection and all-cause mortality.

Lead Extraction-Indications, Procedure, and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation has steadily increased in the United States owing to increased life expectancy, better access to health care, and the adoption of updated guidelines. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an invasive technique for the removal of CIED devices, and the most common indications include device infections, lead failures, and venous occlusion. Although in-hospital and procedure-related deaths for patients undergoing TLE are low, the long-term mortality remains high with 10-year survival reported close to 50% after TLE. This is likely demonstrative of the increased burden of comorbidities with aging. There are guidelines provided by various professional societies, including the Heart Rhythm Society, regarding indications for lead extraction and management of these patients. In this paper, we will review the indications for CIED extraction, procedural considerations, and management of these patients based upon the latest guidelines.

Comparative outcomes of Riata and Fidelis lead management strategies: Results from the NCDR-ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® and Abbott Riata®/Riata ST® leads are at risk of failure and are subject to FDA recall. Comparative risks of various lead management strategies during elective generator change in a multi-center population are unknown. We aim to describe patients with functional, recalled ICD leads undergoing elective generator replacement and report outcomes according to lead management strategies.

METHODS

Using data from the NCDR ICD Registry, patients with a functioning Riata® or Fidelis® lead undergoing generator replacement are described according to lead management: reuse, abandon/replace, and extract/replace. Adjusted rates of death and pre-discharge complications are reported.

RESULTS

There were 13,144 generator replacement procedures involving a functioning, non-infected Riata® or Fidelis® lead (extraction n = 414, abandonment n = 427). Extraction patients were younger (mean 58 vs. 67 years) with fewer comorbidities than the reuse group. Maximum lead dwell time was similar between groups with average 94, 90, and 99 months in the extraction, abandonment, and reuse groups, respectively. In-hospital complications or mortality were more common in the extraction group (10.14%, 4.35%) compared with abandonment (1.64%, 0.47%) and reuse (0.22%, 0.07%). Compared with reuse, the adjusted odds of death or pre-discharge complication were significantly higher in the extraction group (OR 7.77 95% CI 2.42-24.95, p < .001) but not the abandonment group (OR 1.70 95% CI 0.52-5.61, p = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world population, extraction of functional recalled ICD leads was associated with significant risk of in-hospital mortality and complications. Additional work is needed to clarify whether longer term outcomes balance these peri-procedural risks.

FRAGILE: FRench Attitude reGistry in case of ICD LEad replacement

AIMS

FRench Attitude reGistry in case of ICD LEad replacement (FRAGILE) registry was set-up to describe the attitude in different French institutions in case of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead replacement, extraction, or abandonment and to compare outcomes in both groups.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective observational study comparing two attitudes in case of ICD lead replacement, extraction, or abandonment. Primary endpoint describes the attitude in different French centres, collect parameters that may influence the decision. Secondary endpoint compares early and mid-term (2 years) complications in both groups.Between April 2013 and April 2017, 552 patients were included in 32 centres. 434 (78.6%) were male, mean patient's age was 60.3 ± 14.4 years. In 56.9% of the cases, the decision was to explant the lead. Patients in the extraction group were younger than in the abandonment group (56.7 ± 14.5 vs. 65 ± 12.7 P < 0.0001) and less likely to have comorbidities (46.5% vs. 58.3% of the patients P = 0.022). The mean lead dwelling time was significantly longer in the abandonment group as compared with the extraction group (7.6 ± 3.9 vs. 5.2 ± 3.1 years, P < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference between both groups concerning early and 2 years complications.

CONCLUSION

In this registry, the strategy in case of non-infected ICD lead replacement was mainly influenced by patient's age and comorbidities and lead dwelling time. No difference was observed in outcomes in both strategies.

Long-term follow-up of abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads: a nationwide cohort study

AIMS

Commonly, a dysfunctional defibrillator lead is abandoned and a new lead is implanted. Long-term follow-up data on abandoned leads are sparse. We aimed to investigate the incidence and reasons for extraction of abandoned defibrillator leads in a nationwide cohort and to describe extraction procedure-related complications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads were identified in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register from 1991 to 2019. The event-free survival of abandoned defibrillator leads was studied, and medical records of patients with interventions on abandoned defibrillator leads were audited for procedure-related data. We identified 740 abandoned defibrillator leads. Meantime from implantation to abandonment was 7.2 ± 3.8 years with mean patient age at abandonment of 66.5 ± 13.7 years. During a mean follow-up after abandonment of 4.4 ± 3.1 years, 65 (8.8%) abandoned defibrillator leads were extracted. Most frequent reason for extraction was infection (pocket and systemic) in 41 (63%) patients. Procedural outcome after lead extraction was clinical success in 63 (97%) patients. Minor complications occurred in 3 (5%) patients, and major complications in 1 (2%) patient. No patient died from complication to the procedure during 30-day follow-up after extraction.

CONCLUSION

More than 90% of abandoned defibrillator leads do not need to be extracted during long-term follow-up. The most common indication for extraction is infection. Abandoned defibrillator leads can be extracted with high clinical success rate and low risk of major complications at high-volume centres.

A Review of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections for the Practicing Electrophysiologist

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are morbid, costly, and difficult to manage. This review explores the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of CIED infections. Diagnostic accuracy has been improved through increased awareness and improved imaging strategies. Pocket or bloodstream infection with virulent organisms often requires complete system extraction. Emerging prophylactic interventions and novel devices have expanded preventative strategies and options for re-implantation. A clear and nuanced understanding of CIED infection is important to the practicing electrophysiologist.

Quality and Safety in Health Care, Part XLII: Introduction to the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for both primary and secondary prevention have been successful in decreasing sudden cardiac death. The Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry was established partly for reimbursement for primary prevention. However, the registry also has been helpful in better understanding the risks and appropriate selection of patients to receive these devices, serving as an impetus for quality improvement by giving outcome information to the contributing institutions regarding their performance relative to the national results, and increasing research. It is also expected to be helpful to compare results from different devices and provide information to the public.

Consequences of Retained Defibrillator and Pacemaker Leads After Heart Transplantation-An Underrecognized Problem

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are common in patients undergoing heart transplantation (HT), and complete removal is not always possible at the time of transplantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the frequency of retained CIED leads and clinical consequences in consecutive HT patients from 2013 to 2016. Clinical outcomes included bacteremia, upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT), lead migration, and inability to perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients (55 ± 11 years of age, 76% male) were identified; 37 (27%) had retained lead fragments (RLFs) at discharge. Patients with RLFs were older, had longer lead implantation time before HT, and a higher prevalence of dual-coil CIED leads compared with those without RLFs (P < .05 for all). Lead implantation time was identified as an independent predictor for RLFs (P < .05). Patients with RLFs had a higher frequency of DVT compared with the non-RLF group during the 1-year study period (42% vs 21%; P < .04). There was no difference in bacteremia. Fourteen patients (38%) could not undergo clinically indicated MRI.

CONCLUSION

RLFs after HT occur commonly and are associated with a higher rate of UEDVT and limit the use of MRI. Although no significant difference was found in the rates of bacteremia between the groups, this finding might be explained by the overall low incidence. Patients with risk factors for RLFs should be identified before transplantation, and complete lead removal should be considered with a multidisciplinary approach.

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.