Procedural outcome and risk prediction in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) undergoing transvenous lead extraction: a GALLERY subgroup analysis

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: None.

Background

Device complications, such as infection or lead dysfunction necessitating transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are continuously rising amongst patients with indwelling transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

Objectives

Aim of this study was to characterize the procedural outcome and risk factors of patients with indwelling 1- and 2-chamber ICD undergoing TLE.

Methods

We conducted a subgroup analysis of all 1- and 2-chamber ICD patients in the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) database. Predictors for procedural failure and all-cause mortality were assessed.

Results

A total of 854 patients with ICD undergoing TLE were identified, who were younger (62.9±13.8 vs. 70.7±13.0 years; p<0.001), less likely to be female (20.8 vs. 27.1%; p<0.001) and had a higher proportion of patients with coronary artery disease (51.5 vs. 38.6%; p<0.001) and highly reduced ejection fraction (32.0 vs. 23.0%; p>0.001), when compared to non-ICD patients. Leading extraction indication was lead dysfunction (48.0 vs. 21.9%; p<0.001), followed by device-related infection (45.6 vs. 73.0%; p<0.001). There were no differences in overall procedural complications (4.3 vs. 4.3%; p=0.980), clinical success rate (97.9 vs. 97.8%; p=0.861) or procedure-related (0.8 vs. 0.5%; p=0.292) and all-cause mortality (3.4 vs. 3.7%; 0.742) between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed lead age≥10 years (OR:5.75, 95%CI:2.0-16.2; p=0.001) as independent predictor for procedural failure. Systemic infection as extraction indication (OR:9.57, 95%CI:2.2-42.4; p=0.003) and procedural complications (OR:8.0, 95%CI:2.8-23.3; p<0.001) were identified as risk factors for all-cause mortality. Predictors for systemic infection in ICD patients were atrial fibrillation (OR: 2.22, 95%CI: 1.51-3.27; p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR: 2.28, 95%CI: 1.59-3.25; p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (OR: 2.0, 95%CI: 1.39-2.89; p<0.001).

Conclusions

Transvenous lead extraction is safe and efficacious in patients with 1- and 2-chamber ICD. Although lead dysfunction is the leading indication for extraction, systemic device-related infection is the main driver of all-cause mortality for ICD patients undergoing TLE.

1255Comprehensive analysis of pacemaker patients with and without abandoned leads undergoing transvenous lead extraction: A GALLERY subgroup analysis

OnBehalf

GALLERY investigators

Background

The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated complications such as infection, lead dysfunction or thrombotic events is continuously rising and thus making transvenous lead extraction (TLE) an ever more needed procedure in clinical practice today. Patients with abandoned leads represent a special cohort with a potentially higher susceptibility to CIED-related infections and vascular complications. Moreover, according to literature abandoned leads seem to be associated with more procedural complications and mortality during TLE. 

Aim

 

The aim of this study was to provide an insight on safety, procedural outcome and risk prediction on pacemaker patients with abandoned leads undergoing TLE from the largest national laser-sheath registry to date.

Methods + Results:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the GALLERY database, which collected 2533 patients undergoing TLE in Germany between 2013 and 2017. Out of 903 pacemaker patients, who underwent TLE, 226 patients (25.0%) with abandoned leads were identified. Those patients had a higher number of leads per patient (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3; ns) and longer lead dwell-times (168.0 ± 89.7 vs. 123.0 ± 69.2 months; p < 0.0001) compared to pacemaker patients without abandoned leads. There were no differences in age (71.5 vs. 72.3 years; ns), body mass index (26.5 ± 4.5 vs. 26.78 ± 4.8 kg/m2; ns) or gender distribution (69.0 vs. 66.5% male; ns). Leading indication for TLE was device infection with no difference between groups (79.7 vs 77.8 %; ns). There were no differences in terms of pacemaker dependency, length of hospitalization or comorbidities. Patients with abandoned leads had longer procedure times (112.0 ± 69.0 vs. 86.4 ± 53.0 minutes; p < 0.0001) and a higher incidence of procedural complications (6.6 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.03), but there were no differences in neither procedural and clinical success rates (96.5 vs. 97.3%; ns), nor all-cause mortality (1.33 vs. 2.66%; ns). Multivariate logistic regression revealed abandoned leads (OR 2.1, CI 1.0-4.4, p = 0.04) and female gender (OR 2.4, CI 1.2-4.9, p = 0.02) as independent predictors for procedural complications. Systemic infection (OR 5.4, CI 2.0-14.8, p = 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (OR 4.0, CI 1.5-10.7, p = 0.007) were strong predictors for all-cause mortality in patients with indwelling pacemaker. Patient age > 75 years (OR 3.9, CI 2.7-5.6, p < 0.0001) and a lead dwell-time > 10 years (OR 1.6, CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.01) were identified as risk factors for an infectious cause for TLE. 

Conclusion

Abandoned leads are frequently encountered in pacemaker patients undergoing TLE and pose an important risk factor for procedural complications. Systemic CIED-related infections are the strongest driver of mortality in this patient cohort and urgently call for further improvements in early diagnosis and prevention.