Search

Background: Cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) pocket and systemic infection remain common complications with traditional CIEDs and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Leadless pacemakers may be an attractive pacing alternative for many patients following complete hardware removal for a CIED infection by eliminating surgical pocket‐related complications as well as lower risk of recurrent complications. Objective: To describe use and outcomes associated with leadless pacemaker implantation following extraction of a CIED system due to infection. Methods: Patient characteristics and postprocedural outcomes were described in patients who underwent leadless pacemaker implantation at Duke University Hospital between November 11, 2014 and November 18, 2019, following CIED infection and device extraction. Outcomes of interest included procedural complications, pacemaker syndrome, need for system revision, and recurrent infection. Results: Among 39 patients, the mean age was 71 ± 17 years, 31% were women, and the most frequent primary pacing indication was complete heart block (64.1%) with 9 (23.1%) patients being pacemaker dependent at the time of Micra implantation. The primary organism implicated in the CIED infection was Staphylococcus aureus (43.6%). Nine of the 39 patients had a leadless pacemaker implanted before or on the same day as their extraction procedure, and the remaining 30 patients had a leadless pacemaker implanted after their extraction procedure. During follow‐up (mean 24.8 ± 14.7 months) after leadless pacemaker implantation, there were a total of 3 major complications: 1 groin hematoma, 1 femoral arteriovenous fistula, and 1 case of pacemaker syndrome. No patients had evidence of recurrent CIED infection after leadless pacemaker implantation. Conclusions: Despite a prior CIED infection and an elevated risk of recurrent infection, there was no evidence of CIED infection with a mean follow up of over 2 years following leadless pacemaker implantation at or after CIED system removal. Larger studies with longer follow‐up are required to determine if there is a long‐term advantage to implanting a leadless pacemaker versus a traditional pacemaker following temporary pacing when needed during the periextraction period in patients with a prior CIED infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the growing number of patients treated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) there is an increased need for lead management, evaluation, and extraction. While CIED lead extraction has many indications, a consistent approach to preprocedural planning should be applied in all cases, including a thorough consultation with careful review of the patient's medical and device history, as well as a discussion of informed consent and shared decision‐making with the patient and their loved ones. The use of chest X‐ray, echocardiography, and computed tomography (CT) scan can further help with risk stratification and procedural planning. Intraprocedural echocardiography (transesophageal or intracardiac) is recommended and allows early recognition of cardiothoracic injury. Establishing an extraction team with cardiology/electrophysiology, anesthesiology, and CT surgery is is crucial to a successful and safe CIED extraction practice, including immediately available surgical backup. This hands‐on review will address how to approach patients who are undergoing lead extraction, as well as several innovations in preprocedure and intraprocedural risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) frequently need to be extracted due to infection, hardware failure, and other causes. The extraction of the CIED is typically performed using percutaneous methods. While these procedures are mostly performed without incident there is a small risk of significant complications. Dedicated imaging pre‐CEID removal to include the central veins and heart with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) can be utilized to evaluate the lead course and termination, the integrity of the central veins and cardiac chambers, and identify potential complications that may alter the lead extraction procedure as well as reimplantation of subsequent leads. Indications for preprocedural imaging, the technique of dedicated preprocedural lead extraction MDCT, and the approach to the interpretation of the images is discussed in this review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rotational cutting tools are increasingly used in transvenous lead extraction. There are limited data on their safety and efficacy, particularly when used adjunctively for stalled progression. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilization, safety, and effectiveness of mechanical rotational cutting tools for transvenous lead extraction. Methods: Patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction at a single tertiary center (April 2015 to January 2021, n=586) were included in this retrospective analysis. The study characterized the 251 patients (42.8%) whose cases involved the TightRail mechanical cutting tool. Results: Among 251 patients, 526 leads were extracted and TightRail was used for 70.5%. The TightRail was used adjunctively with the laser for 65.2% of leads, 97.8% of the time as the second tool after stalled progression. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, we found that active-fixation leads (odds ratio, 2.78 [95% CI, 1.62–4.78]; P =0.0002), dual-coil leads (odds ratio, 3.39 [95% CI, 1.87–6.16]; P<0.0001), and lead dwell time (odds ratio, 1.16 [95% CI for 1-year increase, 1.11–1.21]; P<0.0001) were factors independently associated with adjunctive TightRail use. Stalled progression requiring TightRail occurred most often in the innominate vein and superior vena cava (59.3%). The clinical success rate was 96.8%, and the rate of major adverse events was 2.8%. Only 1 major adverse event was observed during TightRail use. Conclusions: Rotational cutting with TightRail was used in 42.8% of transvenous lead extractions, predominantly in an adjunctive manner after stalled laser progression in the innominate vein and superior vena cava, and more frequently for dual-coil and leads with longer dwell times. Adjunctive TightRail use carries a low risk of major complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Preprocedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) may identify patients at risk for mechanical complications during lead extraction. Methods To describe the use and feasibility of computed tomography scanning for preprocedural planning of lead extraction, we conducted a retrospective study of high-risk patients, who underwent electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated MDCT before planned lead extraction between January 1, 2012, and March 30, 2013. Results Among 30 patients the mean age was 63 ± 15 years, 60% were male, and 20% had prior sternotomy. Most devices were left sided (93%) and 24 had implantable defibrillators (80%). Indications for extraction included lead malfunction (n = 15; 50%), class I lead advisories (n = 11; 37%), and infection (n = 10; 33%). Overall, there were 65 leads extracted (mean 2.1 leads per patient). One extraction procedure was deferred due to MDCT evidence of significant myocardial perforation with the lead tip > 1 cm beyond the epicardium (n = 1, 3%). MDCT suggestion of lead adherence to central venous structures (n = 13, 43%) was associated with significantly longer laser times (88 ± 71 seconds vs 30 ± 37 seconds, P = 0.02) and larger sheath size (14.9 ± 1.3 vs 13.5 ± 1.2 French, P = 0.02). MDCT evidence of central venous occlusion or stenosis was not associated with increased laser times. Excluding the patient with MDCT evidence of significant perforation, clinical success was achieved in all patients (n = 29/29). Conclusions ECG-gated MDCT scanning before lead extraction may facilitate the identification of significant perforation and patients at high risk for mechanical complication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]