A Study of Major and Minor Complications of 1500 Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures Performed with Optimal Safety at Two High-Volume Referral Centers

Transvenous lead extraction safety and efficacy in infected and noninfected patients using mechanical-only tools: Prospective registry from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a well-established treatment option for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) complications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TLE in CIED infection and non-CIED infection patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent TLE between 2016 and 2022 entered the EXTRACT Registry. Models of prediction were constructed for periprocedural clinical and procedural success and the incidence of major complications, including death in 30 days.

RESULTS

The registry enrolled 504 patients (mean age 66.6 ± 12.8 years; 65.7% male). Complete procedural success was achieved in 474 patients (94.0%) and clinical success in 492 patients (97.6%). The total number of major and minor complications was 16 (3.2%) and 51 (10%), respectively. Three patients (0.6%) died during the procedure. New York Heart Association functional class IV and C-reactive protein levels defined before the procedure were independent predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days in CIED infection patients. The time since the last preceding procedure and platelet count before the procedure were independent predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days in non-CIED infection patients.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE is safe and successfully performed in most patients, with a low major complication rate. CIED infection patients demonstrate better periprocedural clinical success and complete procedural success. However, CIED infection predicts higher 30-day mortality compared with non-CIED infection patients. Predictors of any major complication, including death in 30 days, differ between CIED infection and non-CIED infection patients.

Shared Decision Making and Cardioneuroablation Allow Discontinuation of Permanent Pacing in Patients with Vagally Mediated Bradycardia

BACKGROUND

Safe discontinuation of pacemaker therapy for vagally mediated bradycardia is a dilemma. The aim of the study was to present the outcomes of a proposed diagnostic and therapeutic process aimed at discontinuing or not restoring pacemaker therapy (PPM) in patients with vagally mediated bradycardia.

METHODS

The study group consisted of two subgroups of patients with suspected vagally mediated bradycardia who were considered to have PPM discontinued or not to restore their PPM if cardioneuroablation (CNA) would successfully treat their bradycardia. A group of 3 patients had just their pacemaker explanted but reimplantation was suggested, and 17 patients had preexisting pacemakers implanted. An invasive electrophysiology study was performed. If EPS was negative, extracardiac vagal nerve stimulation (ECVS) was performed. Then, patients with positive ECVS received CNA. Patients with an implanted pacemaker had it programmed to pace at the lowest possible rate. After the observational period and control EPS including ECVS, redo-CNA was performed if pauses were induced. The decision to explant the pacemaker was obtained based on shared decision making (SDM).

RESULTS

After initial clinical and electrophysiological evaluation, 17 patients were deemed eligible for CNA (which was then performed). During the observational period after the initial CNA, all 17 patients were clinically asymptomatic. The subsequent invasive evaluation with ECVS resulted in pause induction in seven (41%) patients, and these patients underwent redo-CNA. Then, SDM resulted in the discontinuation of pacemaker therapy or a decision to not perform pacemaker reimplantation in all the patients after CAN. The pacemaker was explanted in 12 patients post-CNA, while in 2 patients explantation was postponed. During a median follow-up of 18 (IQR: 8-22) months, recurrent syncope did not occur in the CNA recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Pacemaker therapy in patients with vagally mediated bradycardia could be discontinued safely after CNA.

Discussing the Prognosis and Complications of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED): A Systematic Review

An increase in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and undoubtedly the complications brought on by these devices coincide with an increase in cardiovascular disorders, particularly heart rhythm abnormalities. The safest procedure to extract these devices is transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Thus, this systematic review aimed to summarize the possibility of success rates and the common complications that could arise during the surgery. Full-text publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and ScienceDirect were used in this study, which was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventeen studies were reviewed for this systematic review after being screened by title, abstract, full-text availability, and quality appraisal assessment. Heart and vascular tears, along with tricuspid regurgitation (TR), are common adverse events. Pulmonary embolism, hemothorax, hemopericardium, and ghost appearance in echo are less common consequences. In addition, the longer the dwelling time of the leads, the greater the chance of infection due to an increase in lead adhesions and fibrous tissue that has made the procedure unsafe as time passes. However, we concluded that TLE is a successful method across all age groups with an excellent probability of clinical and procedural success in a majority of studies.

Practical Approaches to Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures-Clinical Case Series

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is regarded as the first-line strategy for the management of complications associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), when lead removal is mandatory. The decision to perform a lead extraction should take into consideration not only the strength of the clinical indication for the procedure but also many other factors such as risks versus benefits, extractor and team experience, and even patient preference. TLE is a procedure with a possible high risk of complications. In this paper, we present three clinical cases of patients who presented different indications of TLE and explain how the procedures were successfully performed. In the first clinical case, TLE was necessary because of device extravasation and suspicion of CIED pocket infection. In the second clinical case, TLE was necessary because occlusion of the left subclavian vein was found when an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy was performed. In the last clinical case, TLE was necessary in order to remove magnetic resonance (MR) non-conditional leads, so the patient could undergo an MRI examination for the management of a brain tumor.

Efficacy and Safety of Transvenous Lead Extraction at the Time of Upgrade from Pacemakers to Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Upgrading from pacemakers to ICDs and CRTs is a difficult procedure, and often, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is necessary for venous access. TLE is considered riskier in patients with multiple diseases. We aimed to assess the complexity, risk, and outcome of TLE among CRT and ICD candidates.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical data from 2408 patients undergoing TLE between 2006 and 2021. There were 138 patients upgraded to CRT-D, 33 patients upgraded to CRT-P and 89 individuals upgraded to ICD versus 2148 patients undergoing TLE for other non-infectious indications.

RESULTS

The need for an upgrade was the leading indication for TLE in only 36-66% of patients. In 42.0-57.6% of patients, the upgrade procedure could be successfully done only after reestablishing access to the occluded vein. All leads were extracted in 68.1-76.4% of patients, functional leads were retained in 20.2-31.9%, non-functional leads were left in place in 0.0-1.1%, and non-functional superfluous leads were extracted in 3.6-8.4%. The long-term survival rate of patients in the CRT-upgrade group was lower (63.8%) than in the non-upgrade group (75.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading a patient from an existing pacemaker to an ICD/CRT is feasible in 100% of cases, provided that TLE is performed for venous access. Major complications of TLE at the time of device upgrade are rare and, if present do not result in death.

Repeat Transvenous Lead Extraction-Predictors, Effectiveness, Complications and Long-Term Prognostic Significance

BACKGROUND

Data regarding repeat transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are scarce. The aim of study was to explore the frequency of repeat TLE, its safety, predisposing factors, as well as effectiveness of repeat procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a large single-center database of 3654 TLEs.

RESULTS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (193, i.e., 5,28% among 3654 TLEs). Subsequent re-extractions occurred in 12.21% of the patients. Lead failure was the most common cause of re-extraction (51.16%). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who were older at first implantation [HR = 0.987; p = 0.003], had infection-related TLE [HR = 0.392; p < 0.001] and complete procedural success [HR = 0.544; p = 0.034] were less likely to undergo repeat TLE. Functional leads left in place for continuous use [HR = 1.405; p = 0.012] or superfluous leads left in place (abandoned) [HR = 2.370; p = 0.011] were associated with an increased risk of undergoing a repeat procedure. Overall mortality in patients with repeat TLE and subsequent re-extraction in the entire FU period was similar to that in patients without a history of re-extraction [HR = 0.949; p = 0.480].

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (5.28%) among TLEs. Left of both active and nonactive leads during TLE increased the risk of re-extraction. Re-extraction has no effect on the long-term mortality.

Tricuspid Valve Damage Related to Transvenous Lead Extraction

BACKGROUND

Damage to the tricuspid valve (TVD) is now considered either a major or minor complication of the transvenous lead extraction procedure (TLE). As yet, the risk factors and long-term survival after TLE in patients with TVD have not been analyzed in detail.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis used clinical data of 2631 patients (mean age 66.86 years, 39.64% females) who underwent TLE procedures performed in three high-volume centers. The risk factors and long-term survival of patients with worsening tricuspid valve (TV) function after TLE were analyzed.

RESULTS

In most procedures (90.31%), TLE had no negative influence on TV function, but in 9.69% of patients, a worsening of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) to varying degrees was noted, including significant dysfunction in 2.54% of patients. Risk factors of TLE relating to severe TVD were: TLE of pacing leads (5.264; p = 0.029), dwell time of the oldest extracted lead (OR = 1.076; p = 0.032), strong connective scar tissue connecting a lead with tricuspid apparatus (OR = 5.720; p < 0.001), and strong connective scar tissue connecting a lead with the right ventricle wall (OR = 8.312; p < 0.001). Long-term survival (1650 ± 1201 [1-5519] days) of patients with severe TR was comparable to patients without tricuspid damage related to TLE.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe tricuspid valve damage related to TLE is relatively rare (2.5%). The main risk factors for the worsening of TV function are associated with a longer lead dwell time (more often the pacing lead), causing stronger connective tissue scars connecting the lead to the tricuspid apparatus and right ventricle. TVD is unlikely to affect long-term survival after TLE.

Step by Step through the Years-High vs. Low Energy Lead Extraction Using Advanced Extraction Techniques

Background: Limited data is available about the outcome of TLE in patients with vs. without high energy leads in the last decade. Methods: This is an analysis of consecutive patients undergoing TLE at a high-volume TLE centre from 2001 to 2021 using the stepwise approach. Baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcome of patients with high energy lead (ICD group) vs. without high energy lead (non-ICD group) were compared. Results: Out of 667 extractions, 991 leads were extracted in 405 procedures (60.7%) in the ICD group and 439 leads in 262 procedures (39.3%) in the non-ICD group. ICD patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs. 74 years) and were significantly less often female (18.1% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.005 for both). Advanced extraction tools were used significantly more often in the ICD group (73.2% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in the successful removal (98.8% vs. 99.2%) or complications (4.7% vs. 3.1%) between the groups (p > 0.2 for both). Discussion: Using the stepwise approach, overall procedural success was high and complication rate was low in a high-volume centre. In patients with a high energy lead, the TLE procedure was more complex, but outcome was similar to comparator patients.

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is considered as more risky. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with infected CRT systems. Methods: Data of 3468 patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center in years 2006−2021 were analyzed. The clinical and procedural parameters as well as the efficacy and safety of TLE were compared between patients with infected CRT and pacemakers (PM) and ICD systems. Results: Infectious indications for TLE occurred in 1138 patients, including 150 infected CRT (112 CRT-D and 38 CRT-P). The general health condition of CRT patients was worse with higher Charlson’s comorbidity index. The number of extracted leads was higher in the CRT group, but implant duration was significantly longer in the PM than in the ICD and CRT groups (98.93 vs. 55.26 vs. 55.43 months p < 0.01). The procedure was longer in duration, more difficult, and more complex in patients with pacemakers than in those in the CRT group. The occurrence of major complications and clinical and procedural success as well as procedure-related death did not show any relationship to the type of CIED device. Mortality at more than one-year follow-up after TLE was significantly higher among patients with CRT devices (22.7% vs. 8.7%) than among those in the PM group. Conclusion: Despite the greater burden of lead and comorbidities, the complexity and efficiency of removing infected CRT systems is no more dangerous than removing other infected systems. The duration of the implant seems to play a dominant role.