Initial experience with the Evolution mechanical dilator sheath for lead extraction: Safety and efficacy

Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Transvenous Lead Extraction: Work in Progress

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are the cornerstone of cardiac rhythm management, with a significant number of implantations annually. A rising prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices coupled with widening indications for device removal has fuelled a demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). With advancement of tools and techniques, the safety and efficacy profile of TLE has significantly improved since its inception. Despite these advances, TLE continues to carry risk of significant complications, including a superior vena cava injury and mortality. However, innovative approaches to lead extraction, including the use of the jugular and femoral accesses, offers potential for further gains in safety and efficacy. In this review, the indications and risks of TLE are discussed while examining the evolution of this procedure from simple traction to advanced methodologies, which have contributed to a significant improvement in safety and efficacy.

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.

Rotational mechanical dilator sheaths for effective transvenous lead extraction

Background

An exponential rise in clinical demand for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy is observed all over the world due to the rapidly expanding lifespan. Accordingly, appropriate lead management including lead extraction is becoming increasingly essential components for the comprehensive care of patients with various CIEDs.

Main body

With a high success rate and a low complication rate, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has now been established as first-line therapy for lead extraction. However, TLE is often challenging when there are heavily calcified fibrous adhesions between leads and cardiovascular structures. Recently, rotational mechanical dilator (RMD) sheaths were introduced to resolve this issue and facilitate TLE procedure. There are two types of commercially available RMD sheaths, Evolution® systems and TightRail™. Thorough knowledge of the proper use of the RMD devices is essential to increase success rate and to reduce complications of TLE. In the present review, mechanical features, various techniques, and clinical data of RMD sheaths will be described.

Conclusion

According to recent advancement of device technology, the clinical outcomes of TLE using the RMD sheaths are continuously improving. However, as the RMD sheath is a potentially aggressive tool, special care should be taken when used in patients with longer lead ages.

Usefulness of the controlled-rotation dilator sheath "Evolution RL" for extraction of old leads in two Japanese centers - An experience in use

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an established procedure for the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. However, some difficulties and risks of complications still exist, especially in old and adhered leads. Evolution RL (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) is a newly introduced device for TLE; however, no clinical results have been reported in Japan, and the results with older leads are unknown. We investigated the efficacy and safety of Evolution RL and its usefulness for old leads at two TLE centers in Japan.

METHODS

A total of 27 consecutive patients who underwent lead extraction using Evolution RL at Shinshu University Hospital and Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital from September 2017 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. We examined the backgrounds of the patients and leads and investigated the efficacy and safety of the procedures. We divided the leads into two groups according to the number of years of implantation (10 years) and compared the results.

RESULTS

Among the 27 patients, 20 (74.1%) were men, and the median age was 62 (14-91) years. The total number of leads was 58, and the median implantation duration was 136 months (8-448). We achieved clinical success in all patients and complete procedural success in 24 patients (88.9%). In three patients, the broken tip of the lead remained in the heart. No major complications were noted. Of the 58 leads, there were 34 leads with more than 10 years of implantation, with significantly more Evolution RLs used (94.1% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.001) and significantly higher percentages of Evolution 11Fr, 13Fr, and steady sheaths used (79.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.001, 52.9% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.006, and 64.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In two TLE centers in Japan, Evolution RL was shown to be safe and effective, even in leads older than 10 years.

Outcomes of Lead Extraction Using the TIghtRail(TM) Sheath: An Opportunity for Increasing Access While Preserving Outcomes?

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has evolved significantly since initial techniques were described more than 30 years ago. In the present study, Artus et al describe outcomes with a commonly used extraction tool - the TightRailTM sheath - at five low-moderate volume extraction centers in France following their establishment by recently trained operators. This retrospective observational analysis offers an important contribution to the limited literature on outcomes using the TightRailTM sheath. Following training at high volume centers, operators returned to five regional medical centers to launch TLE programs. Over 6 years, 225 patients underwent TLE targeting 438 leads (22% ICD leads) with a mean lead dwell time of 10 years. Overall, clinical success was achieved in 93% of procedures with a 3% rate of major complications. This series, one of the largest using TightRailTM and the largest using it exclusively, demonstrates favorable outcomes and safety data even in centers early in their clinical experience with relatively low annual volumes, averaging 10 TLE procedures per year. This study, in addition to supporting use of the TightRailTM sheath for TLE, also indicate that with appropriate training and support it can be safely and effectively offered outside of high-volume centers using this tool without necessarily requiring availability of a more capital-intensive excimer laser sheath. Further investigation on appropriate patient selection, definition of the "learning curve," and optimal tool selection is needed to help deliver the best outcomes for patients in need of this complex procedure. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Efficacy and mortality of rotating sheaths versus laser sheaths for transvenous lead extraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rotating and laser sheaths are both routinely used in transvenous lead extraction (TLE) which can lead to catastrophic complications including death. The efficacy and risk of each approach are uncertain. To perform a meta-analysis to compare success and mortality rates associated with rotating and laser sheaths.

METHODS

We searched electronic academic databases for case series of consecutive patients and randomized controlled trials published 1998-2017 describing the use of rotating and laser sheaths for TLE. Among 48 studies identified, rotating sheaths included 1,094 patients with 1,955 leads in 14 studies, and laser sheaths included 7,775 patients with 12,339 leads in 34 studies. Patients receiving rotating sheaths were older (63 versus 60 years old) and were more often male (74% versus 72%); CRT-P/Ds were more commonly extracted using rotating sheaths (12% versus 7%), whereas ICDs were less common (37% versus 42%), p > 0.05 for all. Infection as an indication for lead extraction was higher in the rotating sheath group (59.8% versus 52.9%, p = 0.002). The mean time from initial lead implantation was 7.2 years for rotating sheaths and 6.3 years for laser sheaths (p > 0.05).

RESULTS

Success rates for complete removal of transvenous leads were 95.1% in rotating sheaths and 93.4% in laser sheaths (p < 0.05). There was one death among 1,094 patients (0.09%) in rotating sheaths and 66 deaths among 7,775 patients (0.85%) in laser sheaths, translating to a 9.3-fold higher risk of death with laser sheaths (95% CI 1.3 to 66.9, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Laser sheaths were associated with lower complete lead removal rate and a 9.3-fold higher risk of death.

Powered sheaths for lead extraction

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has seen a rapid expansion in the past 20 years. The procedure has changed from early techniques involving simple manual traction that frequently proved themselves ineffective for chronically implanted leads, and carried significant periprocedural risks including death, to the availability of a wide range of more efficacious techniques and tools, providing the skilled extractor with a well-equipped armamentarium. The reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with these new extraction techniques has widened indications to TLE from prevalent use in life-threatening situations, such as infection and sepsis, to a more widespread use even in noninfectious situations such as malfunctioning leads. Powered sheaths have been a remarkable step forward in this improvement in TLE procedures and recent registries at high-volume centers report high success rates with exceedingly low complication rates. This review is aimed at describing technical features of powered sheaths as well as reported performance during TLE procedures.

Results of the Patient-Related Outcomes of Mechanical lead Extraction Techniques (PROMET) study: a multicentre retrospective study on advanced mechanical lead extraction techniques

AIMS

Several large studies have documented the outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), focusing on laser and mechanical methods. To date there has been no large series addressing the results obtained with rotational lead extraction tools. This retrospective multicentre study was designed to investigate the outcomes of mechanical and rotational techniques.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were collected on a total of 2205 patients (age 66.0 ± 15.7 years) with 3849 leads targeted for extraction in six European lead extraction centres. The commonest indication was infection (46%). The targeted leads included 2879 pacemaker leads (74.8%), 949 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads (24.6%), and 21 leads for which details were unknown; 46.6% of leads were passive fixation leads. The median lead dwell time was 74 months [interquartile range (IQR) 41-112]. Clinical success was obtained in 97.0% of procedures, and complete extraction was achieved for 96.5% of leads. Major complications occurred in 22/2205 procedures (1%), with a peri-operative or procedure-related mortality rate of 4/2205 (0.18%). Minor complications occurred in 3.1% of procedures. A total of 1552 leads (in 992 patients) with a median dwell time of 106 months (IQR 66-145) were extracted using the Evolution rotational TLE tool. In this subgroup, complete success was obtained for 95.2% of leads with a procedural mortality rate of 0.4%.

CONCLUSION

Patient outcomes in the PROMET study compare favourably with other large TLE trials, underlining the capability of rotational TLE tools and techniques to match laser methods in efficacy and surpass them in safety.

Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction using the TightRail™ mechanical rotating dilator sheath and excimer laser sheath

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an important part of comprehensive lead management. The selection of tools available has expanded in recent years but data on their efficacy is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes using the TightRail™ mechanical rotating mechanical dilator sheath in comparison to excimer laser sheaths and describe factors predictive of successful extraction.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TLE at a single tertiary center (2013-2019) were included in a prospective registry. Leads targeted for extraction with either an SLS II/Glidelight™ or TightRail™ sheath were included. Outcomes were analyzed on a per-lead basis. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess differences in lead extraction success by extraction tool used while adjusting for nonindependence of multiple leads extracted from the same patient. Covariates included patient comorbidities, lead characteristics, and sheath size.

RESULTS

A total of 575 leads extracted from 372 patients were included. Overall success rate was 97%. TightRail™ was the first tool used in 180 (31.3%) leads with success rate of 61.7%; laser sheaths were the first tool in 395 leads (68.7%) with success rate of 67.8%. Predictors of successful extraction included lead age, lead type, and sheath sizing. Extraction success did not differ based on whether a laser or TightRail™ sheath was used (adjusted odds ratio = 0.94; 95% confidence interval = 0.59-1.50).

CONCLUSION

The TightRail™ sheath is an effective tool for TLE. Lead age, lead type, and sheath sizing were predictive of successful extraction but sheath type was not. These findings are hypothesis generating and warrant further investigation in a prospective, randomized study.

Comparison between TightRail rotating dilator sheath and GlideLight laser sheath for transvenous lead extraction

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the comparative analyses of TightRail rotating dilator sheath (Philips) and laser sheath for lead extraction.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the TightRail sheath as a primary or secondary tool for transvenous lead extraction (TLE).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of 202 consecutive patients who underwent TLE using either TightRail sheath and/or GlideLight laser sheath (Philips) in our hospital. The study population was divided into three groups: Group A underwent TLE with laser sheath only (N = 157), Group B with TightRail sheath only (N = 22), and Group C with both sheaths (N = 23).

RESULTS

During this period, 375 leads in 202 patients were extracted, including 297 leads extracted by laser sheath alone, 45 leads by TightRail sheath alone, and 33 by both TightRail sheath and laser sheaths. The most common indications included device infection (44.6%) and lead-related complications (44.1%). The median age of leads was 8.9 years. TightRail sheath (Group B) achieved similar efficacy as a primary extraction tool compared with laser sheath (Group A), with complete procedure success rate of 93.3% (vs. 96.6%, P = .263) and clinical success rate of 100.0% (vs. 98.1%, P = .513). Among 32 leads in which Tightrail was used after laser had failed (Group C), the complete procedure success rate was 75.8%. No significant difference in procedural adverse events was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our single-center experience confirms that the TightRail system is an effective first-line and second-line method for TLE. Further investigation is required to guide the selection of mechanical and laser sheaths in lead extraction cases.

Performance and outcomes of transvenous rotational lead extraction: Results from a prospective, monitored, international clinical study

Background

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) plays a critical role in managing patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Mechanical TLE tools, including rotational sheaths, are used to overcome fibrosis and calcification surrounding leads. Prospective clinical data are limited regarding the safety and effectiveness of use of mechanical TLE devices, especially rotational tools.

Objective

To prospectively investigate the safety and effectiveness of mechanical TLE in real-world usage.

Methods

Patients were enrolled at 10 sites in the United States and Europe to evaluate the use of mechanical TLE devices. Clinical success, complete procedural success, and complications were evaluated through follow-up (median, 29 days). Patient data were source verified and complications were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee (CEC).

Results

Between October 2018 and January 2020, mechanical TLE tools, including rotational sheaths, were used to extract 460 leads with a median indwell time of 7.4 years from 230 patients (mean age 64.3 ± 14.4 years). Noninfectious indications for TLE were more common than infectious indications (61.5% vs 38.5%, respectively). The extracted leads included 305 pacemaker leads (66.3%) and 155 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads (33.7%), including 85 leads with passive fixation (18.5%). A bidirectional rotational sheath was needed for 368 leads (88.0%). Clinical success was obtained in 98.7% of procedures; complete procedural success was achieved for 96.3% of leads. CEC-adjudicated device-related major complications occurred in 6 of 230 (2.6%) procedures. No isolated superior vena cava injury or procedural death occurred.

Conclusion

This prospective clinical study demonstrates that use of mechanical TLE tools, especially bidirectional rotational sheaths, are effective and safe.

Deep sedation for transvenous lead extraction: a large single-centre experience

Aims

Transvenous lead extraction for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is of growing importance. Nevertheless, the optimal anaesthetic approach, general anaesthesia vs. deep sedation (DS), remains unresolved. We describe our tertiary centre experience of the feasibility and safety of DS.

Methods and results

Extraction procedures were performed in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory by two experienced electrophysiologists. We used intravenous Fentanyl, Midazolam, and Propofol for DS. A stepwise approach with locking stylets, dilator sheaths, and mechanical sheaths via subclavian, femoral, or internal jugular venous access was utilized. Patient characteristics and procedural data were collected. Logistic regression models were used to identify parameters associated with sedation-related complications. Extraction of 476 leads (dwelling time/patient 88 ± 49 months, 30% ICD leads) was performed in 220 patients (64 ± 17 years, 80% male). Deep sedation was initiated with bolus administration of Fentanyl, Midazolam, and Propofol; mean doses 0.34 ± 0.12 μg/kg, 24.3 ± 6.8 μg/kg, and 0.26 ± 0.13 mg/kg, respectively. Deep sedation was maintained with continuous Propofol infusion (initial dose 3.7 ± 1.1 mg/kg/h; subsequently increased to 4.7 ± 1.2 mg/kg/h with 3.9 ± 2.6 adjustments) and boluses of Midazolam and Fentanyl as indicated. Sedation-related episodes of hypotension, requiring vasopressors, and hypoxia, requiring additional airway management, occurred in 25 (11.4%) and 5 (2.3%) patients, respectively. These were managed without adverse consequences. Five patients (2.3%) experienced major intraprocedural complications; there were no procedure-related deaths. All of our logistic regression models indicated intraprocedural support was associated with administration higher Fentanyl doses.

Conclusion

Transvenous lead extraction under DS in the EP laboratory is a safe procedure with high success rates when performed by experienced staff.

Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has continued to rise along with indications for their removal. When confronted with challenging clinical scenarios such as device infection, malfunction or vessel occlusion, patients often require the prompt removal of CIED hardware, including associated leads. Recent advancements in percutaneous methods have enabled physicians to face a myriad of complex lead extractions with efficiency and safety. Looking ahead, emerging technologies hold great promise in making extractions safer and more accessible for patients worldwide. This review will provide the most up-to-date indications and procedural approaches for lead extractions and insight on the future trends in this novel field.

Success and complication rates of lead extraction with the first- vs. the second-generation Evolution mechanical sheath

Aims

The Evolution sheath (Cook Medical, USA) is a power sheath frequently used for chronic lead extraction. In 2013, a novel type (bidirectional) of Evolution sheath (the RL type) was introduced. We evaluated differences in success and complication rates of the two types.

Methods and results

From 2009 to 2015, all lead extractions requiring the use of an Evolution sheath were prospectively examined. According to the current guidelines, complete procedural success was defined as the removal of all targeted lead materials. Clinical success was the retention of a small portion of the lead, and failure was the inability to achieve either complete procedural or clinical success or the development of any permanently disabling complication. The Evolution sheath was used to extract 149 leads in 103 patients. The first 56 leads were extracted with the original unidirectional sheath, and 93 leads were extracted with the novel bidirectional R/L type. The median age of the lead at the time of extraction was 6.8 vs. 9.1 years (P = 0.007). Complete procedural success was higher for the Evolution R/L (80.0 vs. 98%, P = 0.0004). Clinical success rate was 98 vs. 99%. There were no major complications and 6 (12.0%) vs. 2 (3.8%) minor complications (P = 0.153). We did not observe changes in success rates or complications over time, meaning that the difference cannot be explained by learning curve.

Conclusion

Use of the novel Evolution R/L sheath vs. the original Evolution sheath was associated with significant higher complete success rates, without major complications and with a trend towards the reduction of minor complications.

Strategies for Transvenous Lead Extraction Procedures

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has undergone an explosive evolution since its inception as a rudimentary skill with limited technology and therapeutic options. Early techniques involved simple manual traction that frequently proved ineffective for chronically implanted leads, and carried a significant risk of myocardial avulsion, tamponade, and death. The morbidity and mortality associated with these early extraction techniques limited their application to use only in life-threatening situations, such as infection and sepsis. The past four decades, however, have witnessed significant advances in lead extraction technology, resulting in more efficacious techniques and tools, providing the skilled extractor with a well-equipped armamentarium. With the development of the discipline, we have witnessed a growth in the community of TLE experts coincident with a marked decline in the incidence of procedure-related morbidity and mortality, with recent registries at high-volume centers reporting high success rates with exceedingly low complication rates. Future developments in lead extraction are likely to focus on new tools that will allow for us to provide comprehensive device management, develop alternative systems for extraction training, and focus on the design of new leads conceived to facilitate future extraction.

Lead Extraction Considerations for the Referring Cardiologist

The population of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) continues to grow due to increasing indications in an aging population and breakthroughs in both the medical and the surgical care of patients with heart disease. As a result, there has been a growing need for device and lead extractions due to the growing population of patients with CIEDs and the subsequent need for system upgrades or revisions because of complications, infections, and lead advisory alerts.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Patients at Risk

The incidence of infection following implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing at a faster rate than that of device implantation. Patients with a CIED infection usually require hospitalisation and complete device and lead removal. A significant proportion die from their infection. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is associated with rare but serious complications including major vascular injury or cardiac perforation. Operator experience and advances in lead extraction methods, including laser technology and rotational sheaths, have resulted in procedures having a low risk of complication and mortality. Strategies for preventing CIED infections include intravenous antibiotics and aseptic surgical techniques. An additional method to reduce CIED infection may be the use of antibacterial TYRX™ envelope. Data from non-randomised cohort studies have indicated that antibacterial envelope use can reduce the incidence of CIED infection by more than 80 % in high-risk patients and a randomised clinical trial is ongoing.

Transvenous extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads using Evolution® mechanical dilator sheath: a single center confirmatory experience

Objective

In recent years there has been an increase in clinical situations requiring lead extraction procedures of implanted cardiac devices. In our clinic, extraction procedures are performed with Evolution® mechanical lead extraction system. In this manuscript we aimed to evaluate our lead extraction procedures.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated lead extraction procedures carried out on 41 patients [30 male, 11 female patient; mean age 61.5 ± 18.5 median 67 (23–85)] between 2008 and 2015 using Evolution® system. Procedural success, major and minor complications are determined according to previously published guidelines.

Results

Mean duration of the lead implantation was 88.4 ± 62.5 months (6–240). Implanted device was a pacemaker in 27 (65.8 %) and ICD in 14 (34.2 %) of patients. Total 67 leads were extracted from the patients, 22 (32.8 %) were atrial, 30 (44.2 %) were ventricular, 14 (21.5 %) were dual coil defibrillator and 1 (1.5 %) was coronary sinus lead. Indications for lead removal were pacemaker decubitis and infection in 29 (70.8 %), lead dysfunction in 11 (26.8 %) and subclavian vein thrombosis in 1 (2.4 %) patient. Success rate with Evolution® system without using snare was 85.3 %. Clinical success rate was 97.5 % procedural success rate was 95.1 % and failure occured in one patient. Major complications occured in 2 (4.8 %) patients, 1 (2.4 %) was procedure related mortality. Minor complications were seen in 5 (12.2 %) of patients.

Conclusions

In our single center study it is shown that extraction of pacemaker and defibrillator leads of relatively long implantation duration and in an older age patient group may be successfully carried out using the Evolution® system. However due to potentially serious complications it is adviced to be done by experienced operators in centers with cardiovascular surgery backup.

Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable cardiac electronic device infection. Report of a joint Working Party project on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC, host organization), British Heart Rhythm Society (BHRS), British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) and British Society for Echocardiography (BSE)

Infections related to implantable cardiac electronic devices (ICEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, are increasing in incidence in the USA and are likely to increase in the UK, because more devices are being implanted. These devices have both intravascular and extravascular components and infection can involve the generator, device leads and native cardiac structures or various combinations. ICED infections can be life-threatening, particularly when associated with endocardial infection, and all-cause mortality of up to 35% has been reported. Like infective endocarditis, ICED infections can be difficult to diagnose and manage. This guideline aims to (i) improve the quality of care provided to patients with ICEDs, (ii) provide an educational resource for all relevant healthcare professionals, (iii) encourage a multidisciplinary approach to ICED infection management, (iv) promote a standardized approach to the diagnosis, management, surveillance and prevention of ICED infection through pragmatic evidence-rated recommendations, and (v) advise on future research projects/audit. The guideline is intended to assist in the clinical care of patients with suspected or confirmed ICED infection in the UK, to inform local infection prevention and treatment policies and guidelines and to be used in the development of educational and training material by the relevant professional societies. The questions covered by the guideline are presented at the beginning of each section.

Safety of transvenous lead extraction according to centre volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex invasive procedure and the experience of the operator and the team is a major determinant of procedural outcomes.

AIM

Because of very limited data available on minimum procedural volumes to enable training and ongoing competency for TLEs, we performed a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the outcomes of TLE in the centres with low, medium, and high volume of procedures.

METHODS

Of the 280 papers initially retrieved until February 2013, 66 observational studies met inclusion criteria and were included in at least one stratified meta-analysis: 17 were prospective studies; 47 had a retrospective design; and 2 were defined 'experience studies'. We included only articles published after the introduction of laser technique (year 1999). We divided the studies in low, medium, and high volume centres utilizing either the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) or Lexicon classification criteria.

RESULTS

When meta-analyses were carried out separately for the studies with larger and smaller sample sizes, either using EHRA or Lexicon classification criteria, no clear differences emerged in the combined rate of major complications or intraoperative deaths. In contrast, both minor complications and mortality at 30 days decreased as centre volume increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In our meta-analysis of observational studies, patients who have been treated in higher volume centres have a lower probability of minor complications and death at 30 days regardless of the infection rate, length of lead duration, type of device, and type of extraction.

Extraction of chronically implanted cardiovascular electronic device leads

OPINION STATEMENT

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are a remarkable success story. These systems are widely used to prevent symptomatic bradycardia, treat malignant tachyarrhythmia, and to restore a more physiologic contraction to a failing left ventricle. Implantation of a CIED usually involves a lifelong commitment to this therapy, which, unfortunately, is not free from complication requiring removal and/or replacement of all or part of the system. The major obstacle to removal of a CIED is the fibrous attachments that develop between a lead and co-existent leads, veins, and the heart. This process increases over time such that, by one year, removal by traction alone may be problematic and, if aggressive, result in complication. Physicians, surgeons, and engineers have refined techniques of percutaneous lead extraction and developed tools, which have facilitated the process, increased success, and lowered the incidence of complication. Extraction may be performed for a variety of indications some of which are unanimously agreed upon while others remain controversial. Proponents of a broadened application of extraction have proffered the concept of 'lead management,' which includes the removal of all leads that are not clinically relevant to the patient. The benefit of this approach would be to limit the risk of future complication, such as venous occlusion or thromboembolism, and to obviate the increase in difficulty of extraction (due to longer implant duration) that might accompany removal should that be required in the future. Intuitively appealing as this approach might be, there is little evidence supporting it, and the extraordinarily large number of patients currently implanted with recalled ICD leads is indicative of the potential impact this practice may have. This review will discuss extraction, its indications, and outcomes.

From lead management to implanted patient management: systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years of experience in lead extraction

Percutaneous lead extraction is considered a safe and effective procedure, although published results derive primarily from cohort studies. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 15 years' experience in this field, to give an objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. Moreover, the subsequent metaregression analysis enabled the identification of the main factors influencing these results: patient age, presence of leads in situ for more than 1 year, presence of device infection and use of laser sheath. These findings are significant in order to improve our extraction approach, data reporting and future research.

Implantable defibrillator lead extraction with optimized standard extraction techniques

Background

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads might not be extracted especially in developing countries because of the high cost and lack of specialized tools. We aimed to evaluate transvenous extraction of ICD leads using optimized standard techniques.

Methods

We prospectively analyzed clinical characteristics, optimized extraction techniques and the feasibility of extraction for 40 patients (33 males; mean age 47.9 ± 16.1 years) with 42 ICD leads.

Results

Complete procedural success rate was 95.2% (40/42), and the clinical success rate was 97.6% (41/42). One ICD lead required cardiothoracic surgery. Minor complications occurred in three cases (7.5%), and no major complications or death occurred. Locking stylets were used to extract most leads (34, 81.0%) and almost half of the leads (20, 47.6%) required mechanical dilatation to free fibrotic adhesions; these leads had been implanted for a longer period of time than the others (43.7 ± 18.2 vs. 18.4 ± 13.4 months, P < 0.05). Three-quarters of the leads (30, 71.4%) were extracted with locking stylets plus manual traction (12, 28.6%), or mechanical dilatation with counter-traction (18, 42.8%) by the superior vena cava approach and one-quarter of the leads (11, 26.2%) were removed by optimized snare techniques using the femoral vein approach. Median extraction time was 20 min (range 2–68 min) per lead. Linear regression analysis showed that the extraction time was significantly correlated with implant duration (r = 0.70, P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 14.5 months (range 1–58 months), no infection, or procedure-related death occurred in our series.

Conclusions

Our optimized procedure for transvenous extraction of ICD leads provides a practical and low-cost method for standard procedures.