Impact of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices in chronic hemodialysis patients: a single-center, observational comparative study

Periprocedural Management and Multidisciplinary Care Pathways for Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The rapid technological advancements in cardiac implantable electronic devices such as pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and loop recorders, coupled with a rise in the number of patients with these devices, necessitate an updated clinical framework for periprocedural management. The introduction of leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous and extravascular defibrillators, and novel device communication protocols underscores the imperative for clinical updates. This scientific statement provides an inclusive framework for the periprocedural management of patients with these devices, encompassing the planning phase, procedure, and subsequent care coordinated with the primary device managing clinic. Expert contributions from anesthesiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists, and cardiac nurses are consolidated to appraise current evidence, offer patient and health system management strategies, and highlight key areas for future research. The statement, pertinent to a wide range of health care professionals, underscores the importance of quality care pathways for patient safety, optimal device function, and minimization of hemodynamic disturbances or arrhythmias during procedures. Our primary objective is to deliver quality care to the expanding patient cohort with cardiac implanted electronic devices, offering direction in the era of evolving technologies and laying a foundation for sustained education and practice enhancement.

How does a CIED presence influence chances and safety of haemodialysis access? Conclusions from over 3000 thoracic venografies

Patients requiring temporal or permanent catheter or arterio-venous fistula (AVF) for haemodialysis may be in challenging situation, if they are cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) carriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors analysed preoperative venogrphies of 3100 patients referred for transvenous lead extraction for a possible chance of safe haemodialysis catheter (HC) implantation or proper AVF function.

RESULTS

A chance of safe catheter implantation parallel to existing leads reaches 68.8% ipsilaterally to CIED. Contraindications for implantation have been found in less than 2% of cases contralaterally. Ipsilaterally proper AVF function chance has been found in 50.3% of the cases and almost 98% contralaterally. A bilateral chest electrodes location require the special attention. Abandoned lead, lead burden, bilateral leads, additional lead implantation or abandonment, and implant duration may have a significant influence on HC insertion or proper function of arteriovenous fistula.

CONCLUSION

(1) Obstruction of prominent thoracic veins is a frequent finding in CIED carriers and may impede or disable implantation haemodialysis accesses. (2) Implantation of temporary or permanent HC may be questionable ipsilaterally to the CIED in 31.2% and contralaterally in 2.0% of patients. Proper function of AVF is uncertain in 49.7% ipsilaterally and 2.1% contralaterally to CIED. (3) Pacing history and leads dwell time influence chances of success haemodialysis access even on the free-from CIED chest side. (4) Proper venous flow evaluation seems to be valuable in CIED carriers before an attempt of haemodialysis access formation, even contralaterally.

Development of Central Venous Stenosis Upon ICD Implantation in Dialysis Patients: A Non-Negligible Issue

Background

In hemodialysis patients, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation may result in central venous stenosis (CVS) with associated symptoms, such as pain, edema of the ipsilateral arm, facial edema, and loss of dialysis access. However, literature concerning CVS in dialysis patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device is scarce.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study in which we investigated the incidence of CVS in end-stage renal disease patients on chronic dialysis who received an ICD as part of participation in the randomized ICD2 trial. A venography was performed before ICD implantation and at 1 year follow-up.

Results

Between 2007 and 2017, 80 patients on dialysis received an ICD according to ICD2 trial protocol. Our population mainly consisted of males (76.3%), and had a median age of 67 years. Hemodialysis was the predominant dialysis modality (71.3%). The ICD was implanted in the right pectoral region in 58 patients (72.5%). A minority of the patients (27.5%) had a history of central venous catheters use, ipsilateral to ICD implantation site. Median follow-up was 16 months (IQR 13-35). Prospective assessment of central vein patency was possible in 56 patients (70.0%). Partial obstruction of central vein at follow-up was present in 19 out of 56 patients (33.9%) and complete occlusion in 4 patients (7.1%). With a complete clinical follow-up of all patients with a median duration of 3.5 years (IQR 2.7 - 6.3), 3 patients developed clinically significant symptoms of CVS.

Conclusions

Development of CVS in patients on chronic dialysis who received an ICD is a cause of concern. Prevention of such complications deserves attention and further research.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN20479861.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.