A Systematic Review of Short-Term Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation After Transvenous Lead Removal of Infected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device

Assessment of adverse events stratified by timing of leadless pacemaker implantation with cardiac implantable electronic devices extraction due to infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Removal of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is strongly recommended for CIED-related infections, and leadless pacemakers (LPs) are increasingly used for reimplantation. However, the optimal timing and safety of LP implantation after CIED removal for infection remains unclear.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess complication rates (all-cause mortality and reinfection) when LP implantation was performed simultaneously with or after CIED removal.

METHODS

Studies published from 2015 to September 2024 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Observational studies and case series on CIED removal and LP implantation were eligible. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfection post-LP implantation. Pooled estimates were obtained using the Freedman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Study quality was assessed using the MINORS criteria, with data extraction and independent assessment by two authors.

RESULTS

Of 396 records, 16 studies were included in the analysis, with 653 patients (mean age:76.9 years). The incidence of isolated pocket infections was 46.7% (95% CI: 32.7%-61.2%) and systemic infections at 46.3% (95% CI: 29.5%-64.0%). The primary outcome incidence was 19.4% (95% CI: 12.8%-28.3%, I 2: 0%) for simultaneous CIED extraction and LP implantation compared with 7.79% (4.37%-13.5%, I 2: 4%) for LP implantation after CIED extraction (p = .009). All-cause mortality rates were 22.8% (95% CI: 15.9%-31.6%, I 2: 0%) for simultaneous implantation and 8.71% (4.46%-16.3%, I 2: 21%) after extraction (p = 0.008). Reinfection was not observed in any of these studies.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous CIED extraction and LP implantation due to infection may be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

Outcomes of concurrent and delayed leadless pacemaker implantation following extraction of infected cardiovascular implantable electronic device

INTRODUCTION

The optimal reimplantation strategies following the removal of infected cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) remain inadequately understood. Given the limitations and risks associated with traditional approaches, the investigation of alternative devices, such as leadless pacemakers (LPs), has gained attention due to their potentially lower infection risk.

METHODS

We reviewed literature sources including PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, utilizing a combination of search terms. The inclusion criterion was leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation following lead removal (LR) of infected CIEDs, while the exclusion criterion was LR for noninfectious indications. Study endpoints encompassed patient outcomes during follow-up.

RESULTS

Our literature review yielded 827 articles, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a cohort of 657 patients who underwent LR followed by LP implantation. A total of 295 (44.9%) patients underwent concurrent LP implantation during the LR procedure. The rest underwent delayed procedures, and the overall duration between LR of infected CIED and LP implantation was 4.32 ± 3.9 days. A total of 194 (29.5%) patients had systemic CIED infections, whereas 153 (23.3%) had isolated pocket infections. In our patient cohort, procedural complications were scarce. Over a mean follow-up period of 13.3 ± 9.4 months, pacemaker syndrome was observed in 4 patients (0.61%), and 3 patients (0.46%) experienced persistent or recurrent infections.

CONCLUSION

Our review finds both concurrent and delayed LP implantation after infected CIED extraction to be safe, with low reinfection rates and minimal complications. LPs could also serve as a bridge to CRT re-implantation minimizing the use of temporary pacing systems.

How to Approach Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Bacteremia

The approach to a patient with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) and bacteremia requires a high index of suspicion. The microorganism and duration of bacteremia affect the pretest probability of CIED infection. When transesophageal echocardiography findings are equivocal, fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/computed tomography can increase the sensitivity and specificity for CIED infection. Confirmed CIED infection warrants complete system extraction. In patients with persistent gram-positive bacteremia despite antimicrobial therapy and unclear involvement of the CIED, the device is sometimes empirically extracted. Long-term effects of extraction (such as risk of suboptimal/failed cardiac resynchronization therapy reimplant) should be factored into decisions regarding empiric CIED extraction.

Ten Years of Leadless Cardiac Pacing

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are self-contained pacemakers implanted inside the heart, providing a clinical strategy of pacing without pacemaker leads or a subcutaneous pocket. From an experimental therapy first used clinically in 2012, a decade later this technology is an established treatment option. Because of technologic advances and growing evidence, LPs are increasingly being used. Herein, the experience gained from a decade of leadless pacing is reviewed. We cover the safety and efficacy of single-chamber LPs, including comparisons with transvenous pacemakers and various models, and the initial clinical results of the first dual-chamber LP system. Furthermore, evidence and considerations regarding the optimal replacement strategy will be covered. Finally, we discuss future device developments that may broaden indications, such as LPs communicating with subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators and energy-harvesting LPs.

Infection remediation after septic device extractions: analysis of three treatment strategies including a 1-year follow-up

Introduction

In CIED infections, all device material needs to be removed. But, especially in pacemaker-dependent patients it is often not possible to realize a device-free interval for infection remediation. In those patients, different treatment options are available, however the ideal solution needs still to be defined.

Methods

This retrospective analysis includes 190 patients undergoing CIED extractions due to infection. Three different treatment algorithms were analyzed: Group 1 included 89 patients with system removal only (System removal group). In Group 2, 28 patients received an epicardial electrode during extraction procedure (Epicardial lead group) while 78 patients in group 3 (contralateral reimplantation group) received implantation of a new system contralaterally during extraction procedure. We analyzed peri- and postoperative data as well as 1-year outcomes of the three groups.

Results

Patients in the system removal and epicardial lead groups were significantly older, had more comorbidities, and suffered more frequently from systemic infections than those in contralateral reimplantation group. Lead extraction procedures had comparable success rates: 95.5%, 96.4%, and 93.2% of complete lead removal in the System removal, Epicardial Lead, Contralateral re-implantation group respectively. Device reimplantation was performed in all patients in Epicardial lead and Contralateral reimplantation group, whereas only 49.4% in System removal group received device re-implantation. At 1-year follow-up, freedom from infection and absence of pocket irritation were comparable for all groups (94.7% Contralateral reimplantation group and Epicardial lead group, 100% System removal group). No procedure-related mortality was observed, whereas 1-year mortality was 3.4% in System removal group, 4.1% in Contralateral re-implantation group and 21.4% in Epicardial lead group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In patients with CIED infection, systems should be removed completely and reimplanted after infection remediation. In pacemaker-dependent patients, simultaneous contralateral CIED re-implantation or epicardial lead placement may be performed, depending on route, severity and location of infection.