Impact of Timing of Transvenous Lead Removal on Outcomes in Infected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Efficacy and safety of mechanical transvenous lead extraction: median follow-up analysis and development of an experimental model for predicting survival post-extraction

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is on the rise, accompanied by an increase in its inevitable complications such as different types of CIED infections that require further therapy and potential device extraction. Ensuring efficacy and safety remains paramount in transvenous lead extraction (TLE), given the complex nature of the procedure. The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of relatively low-cost mechanical TLE, including mid-term clinical follow-up, and to develop a predictive model for post-TLE survival. This study included all consecutive patients admitted for TLE at two tertiary medical centers between 2016 and 2021. Baseline characteristics, TLE procedure details complications occurring during and/or after the procedure and follow-up outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

During the 5-year period, 100 consecutive patients underwent TLE. The mean age of the subjects was 61 ± 3 years. The average time from lead implantation to TLE was 69.34 ± 9.36 months, with a total of 216 leads extracted. The most common indication for TLE was infection observed in 87% of subjects with pocket infection seen in the majority (84%). Complete clinical success was achieved in 98% of patients, with major complications occurred in 5% of cases and only one case of peri-procedural death. Proposed experimental model showed that near 50% of the patients will live less than 73.29 months.

CONCLUSION

TLE demonstrated a high level of safety with low mortality and morbidity rates. Using low cost widely available mechanical tools is useful for treating CIED-related infections.

A Novel Approach to Identifying Appropriate Candidates for Transvenous Lead Extraction

BACKGROUND

The need for transvenous lead extractions (TLEs) in the setting of cardiac implantable electronic device-(CIED) related infections continues to rise. Delays in referral for TLE in this setting are common and are associated with increased mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the outcomes of a comprehensive approach, including an electronic medical record (EMR)-based notification algorithm designed to identify patients with active CIED-related infections to facilitate timely TLE.

METHODS

Following an interdepartmental education initiative at a high-volume extraction center, an EMR based notification algorithm generated alerts for all inpatients with a CIED who received intravenous antibiotics or had positive blood cultures between September 2022 and February 2024. Patients deemed to be high risk underwent an electrophysiology consultation and were managed at the discretion of the treating electrophysiologist. Demographics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

1829 notifications were screened over the study period. Thirty-nine consults were generated (2%). Of these patients, 18 TLEs were performed (46%). Patients who underwent TLE had MSSA (56%), MRSA (22%), enterococcus (11%), Serratia (5.6%), or S. gallolyticus (5.6%) bacteremia. The median time from the review to consultation was 1 day (IQR: 0, 1 days) and review to TLE was 2 days (IQR: 1, 2.75 days). Survival in the extraction group was 67% after a median follow-up period of 133 days (IQR: 59, 223 days).

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive approach, including an EMR-based notification algorithm allowed for the early identification of patients who were appropriate candidates for TLE due to CIED-related infections. Use of this algorithm facilitated timely TLEs.

Indications for Lead Extraction

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are being implanted at increasing rates. Patients with CIEDs require more lead management in contemporary clinical practice, given the increased survival of heart failure patients. There are multiple indications for extraction with the strongest class I indications being in patients with CIED infections. Extraction with complete hardware removal is underutilized and often delayed when it is utilized in patients with CIED infections, resulting in higher mortality. Patient and provider preferences are critical to decision-making when considering extraction. Lead extraction referral and management care pathways are needed in order to optimize care for our patients with CIEDs.

Retrospective Review Identifying Patients With Bacteremia and Intracardiac Devices With an Electronic Health Record Advisory

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections without early diagnosis, treatment, and proper follow-up are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and worse outcomes.  Objective: This study aims to identify patients presenting for hospital admission with bacteremia and the presence of CIED by implementing a best practice advisory (BPA) notification in the electronic medical record to facilitate early consultation with the cardiac electrophysiology (EP) team and treatment.

METHODS

A BPA was implemented into the electronic medical record (EMR) EPIC in 2022 and was generated for any patient that presented to our health system with bacteremia and the presence of a CIED. The BPA gave the provider an option for EP consultation. Data was collected from EPIC from 2021 to 2023 using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD10-CM/PCS) codes to identify patients and comorbidities. A comparative analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the BPA in increasing EP consults and cardiac device extraction procedures, as well as overall outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 447 patients were diagnosed with bacteremia and the presence of a CIED during the study period, with 178 before the BPA and 269 status post-BPA. The BPA resulted in a nonsignificant increase in EP consultations from 19.66% to 25.88% (p = 0.168) and device extractions from 9.55% to 13.75% (p = 0.182). EP consults were a significant predictor for device extractions (odds ratio (OR) = 9.4644, p < 0.0001). The mortality rate decreased from 17.42% to 14.13% (p = 0.419), and the 30-day readmission decreased from 14.37% to 12.41% (p = 0.652).

CONCLUSION

While the BPA did not show significant improvements, its implementation shows promise over time with positive trends in consults, extractions, and in-hospital mortality.

Impact of infective versus sterile transvenous lead removal on 30-day outcomes in cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. This study sought to evaluate the impact of TLR on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with and without CIED infection.

METHODS

From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, we utilized the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess patients who underwent TLR. We categorized TLR as indicated for infection, if the patient had a diagnosis of bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis during the initial admission. Conversely, if none of these conditions were present, TLR was considered sterile. The impact of infective vs sterile indications of TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied.

RESULTS

Out of the total 25,144 patients who underwent TLR, 14,030 (55.8%) received TLR based on sterile indications, while 11,114 (44.2%) received TLR due to device infection, with 40.5% having systemic infection and 59.5% having isolated pocket infection. TLR due to infective indications was associated with a significant in-hospital mortality (5.59% vs 1.13%; OR = 5.16; 95% CI 4.33-6.16; p < 0.001). Moreover, when compared with sterile indications, TLR performed due to device infection was associated with a considerable risk of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism and stroke (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.23-4.47, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the conversion to open heart surgery (1.72% vs. 1.47%, p < 0.111), and infection was not an independent predictor of cardiac (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29) or vascular complications (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.73-1.72) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Higher in-hospital mortality and rates of thromboembolic events associated with TLR resulting from infective indications may warrant further pursuing this diagnosis in patients.

Trends and disparities in cardiac implantable electronic device infection-related mortality in the United States

INTRODUCTION

We performed a cross-sectional study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database to analyze the trends in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection-related mortality from 1999 to 2020.

METHODS

We analyzed the death certificate data from the CDC WONDER database from 1999 to 2020 for CIED infections in the US population aged ≥25 years using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes, listed as the underlying or contributing cause of death. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed per 1 million population by standardizing crude mortality rates to the 2000 US census population. To assess annual mortality trends, we employed the Joinpoint regression model, calculating the annual percent change (APC) in AAMR and corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Overall, there was an observed declining trend in AAMRs related to CIED infection-related mortality. Males accounted for 55% of the total deaths, with persistently higher AAMRs compared to females over the study duration. Both males and females had an overall decreasing trend in AAMRs throughout the study duration. On race/ethnicity stratified analysis, non-Hispanic (NH) Blacks exhibited the highest overall AAMR, followed by NH American Indians or Alaska Natives, NH Whites, Hispanic or Latinos, and NH Asian or Pacific Islanders. On a stratified analysis based on region, the South region had the highest overall AAMR, followed by the Midwest, West, and Northeast regions.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates a significant decline in CIED infection-related mortality in patients over the last two decades. Notable gender, racial/ethnic, and regional differences exist in the rates of mortality related to CIED infections.

Comparison of infection and complication rates associated with transvenous vs. subcutaneous defibrillators in patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease: a multicenter long-term retrospective follow-up

Background

Patients with progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at higher risk of infections and complications from cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). In patients with a primary or secondary prophylactic indication, implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) can prevent sudden cardiac deaths (SCD). We retrospectively compared transvenous-ICD (TV-ICD) and intermuscularly implanted subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) associated infections and complication rates together with hospitalizations in recipients with stage 4 kidney disease.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 70 patients from six German centers with stage 4 CKD who received either a prophylactic TV-ICD with a single right ventricular lead, 49 patients, or a S-ICD, 21 patients. Follow-Ups (FU) were performed bi-annually.

Results

The TV-ICD patients were significantly older. This group had more patients with a history of atrial arrhythmias and more were prescribed anti-arrhythmic medication compared with the S-ICD group. There were no significant differences for other baseline characteristics. The median and interquartile range of FU durations were 55.2 (57.6-69.3) months. During FU, patients with a TV-ICD system experienced significantly more device associated infections (n = 8, 16.3% vs. n = 0; p < 0.05), device-associated complications (n = 13, 26.5% vs. n = 1, 4.8%; p < 0.05) and device associated hospitalizations (n = 10, 20.4% vs. n = 1, 4.8%; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In this long-term FU of patients with stage 4 CKD and an indication for a prophylactic ICD, the S-ICD was associated with significantly fewer device associated infections, complications and hospitalizations compared with TV-ICDs.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices and bloodstream infections: management and outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Bloodstream infection (BSI) of any cause may lead to device infection in cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) patients. Aiming for a better understanding of the diagnostic approach, treatment, and outcome, patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator (CRT-D) hospitalized with BSI were investigated.

METHODS

This is a single-centre, retrospective, cohort analysis including consecutive ICD/CRT-D patients implanted between 2012 and 2021. These patients were screened against a list of all hospitalized patients having positive blood cultures consistent with diagnosed infection in any department of a local public hospital.

RESULTS

The total cohort consisted of 515 patients. Over a median follow-up of 59 months (interquartile range 31-87 months), there were 47 BSI episodes in 36 patients. The majority of patients with BSI (92%) was admitted to non-cardiology units, and in 25 episodes (53%), no cardiac imaging was performed. Nearly all patients (85%) were treated with short-term antibiotics, whereas chronic antibiotic suppression therapy (n = 4) and system extraction (n = 3) were less frequent. Patients with BSI had a nearly seven-fold higher rate (hazard ratio 6.7, 95% confidence interval 3.9-11.2; P < .001) of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic workup of defibrillator patients with BSI admitted to a non-cardiology unit is often insufficient to characterize lead-related endocarditis. The high mortality rate in these patients with BSI may relate to underdiagnosis and consequently late/absence of system removal. Efforts to increase an interdisciplinary approach and greater use of cardiac imaging are necessary for timely diagnosis and adequate treatment.

Effect of age on in-hospital outcomes of transvenous lead extraction for infected cardiac implantable electronic device

BACKGROUND

The real-world data on the safety profile of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) among elderly patients is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the hospital outcomes between patients of different age groups who underwent TLE for infected CIED.

METHOD

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent TLE for infected CIED between 2017 and 2020. We divided the patients into four groups: Group A. Young (<50 years), Group B. Young intermediate (50-69 years old), Group C. Older intermediate (70-79 years old), and Group D. Octogenarian (≥80 years old). We then analyzed the in-hospital outcome and 30-day readmission between these age groups.

RESULTS

A total of 10,928 patients who were admitted for TLE of infected CIED were included in this study: 982 (9.0%) patients in group A, 4,234 (38.7%) patients in group B, 3,204 (29.3%) patients in group C and 2,508 (23.0%) of patients in group D. Our study demonstrated that the risk of early mortality increased with older age (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.19-3.09, p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.51-4.04, p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.69-4.72, p < .01). The risk of non-home discharge also increased in elderly groups (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.52-2.36; p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.82; 95% CI 2.24-3.56; p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 4.16; 95% CI: 3.28-5.28; p < .01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization length and 30-day readmission between different age groups. Apart from a higher rate of open heart surgery in group A, the procedural complications were comparable between these age groups.

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients had worse in-hospital outcomes in early mortality and non-home discharge following the TLE for infected CIED. There was no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in prolonged hospital stay and 30-day readmission. Elderly patients did not have a higher risk of procedural complications.

Contemporary Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: The American College of Cardiology COGNITO Survey

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) infection remains a serious complication, causing increased morbidity and mortality. Early recognition and escalation to definitive therapy including extraction of the infected device often pose challenges.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to assess U.S.-based physicians current practices in diagnosing and managing CIED infections and explore potential extraction barriers.

Methods

An observational survey was performed by the American College of Cardiology including U.S. physicians managing CIEDs from February to March 2022. Sampling techniques and screener questions determined eligibility. The survey featured questions on knowledge and experience with CIED infection patients and case scenarios.

Results

Of 387 physicians completing the survey (20% response rate), 49% indicated familiarity with current guidelines regarding CIED infection. Electrophysiologists (EPs) (91%) were more familiar with these guidelines, compared to non-EP cardiologists (29%) and primary care physicians (23%). Only 30% of physicians specified that their institution had guideline-based protocols in place for managing patients with CIED infection. When presented with pocket infection cases, approximately 89% of EPs and 50% of non-EP cardiologists would follow guideline recommendation to do complete CIED system removal, while 70% of primary care physicians did not recommend guideline-directed treatment.

Conclusions

There are gaps in familiarity of guidelines as well as the knowledge in practical management of CIED infection with non-extracting physicians. Most institutions lack a definite pathway. Addressing discrepancies, including guideline education and streamlining care or referral pathways, will be a key factor to bridging the gap and improving CIED infection patient outcomes.

Lead Extraction and Mortality Among Patients With Cardiac Implanted Electronic Device Infection

Importance

Complete hardware removal is a class I recommendation for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, but practice patterns and outcomes remain unknown.

Objective

To quantify the number of Medicare patients with CIED infections who underwent implantation from 2006 to 2019 and lead extraction from 2007 to 2019 to analyze the outcomes in these patients in a nationwide clinical practice cohort.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included fee-for-service Medicare Part D beneficiaries from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2019, who had a de novo CIED implantation and a CIED infection more than 1 year after implantation. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2019.

Exposure

A CIED infection, defined as (1) endocarditis or infection of a device implant and (2) documented antibiotic therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes of interest were device infection, device extraction, and all-cause mortality. Time-varying multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the association between extraction and survival.

Results

Among 1 065 549 patients (median age, 78.0 years [IQR, 72.0-84.0 years]; 50.9% male), mean (SD) follow-up was 4.6 (2.9) years after implantation. There were 11 304 patients (1.1%) with CIED infection (median age, 75.0 years [IQR, 67.0-82.0 years]); 60.1% were male, and 7724 (68.3%) had diabetes. A total of 2102 patients with CIED infection (18.6%) underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Infection occurred a mean (SD) of 3.7 (2.4) years after implantation, and 1-year survival was 68.3%. There was evidence of highly selective treatment, as most patients did not have extraction within 30 days of diagnosed infection (9202 [81.4%]), while 1511 (13.4%) had extraction within 6 days of diagnosis and 591 (5.2%) had extraction between days 7 and 30. Any extraction was associated with lower mortality compared with no extraction (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90; P < .001). Extraction within 6 days was associated with even lower risk of mortality (AHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.78; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, a minority of patients with CIED infection underwent extraction. Extraction was associated with a lower risk of death compared with no extraction. The findings suggest a need to improve adherence to guideline-directed care among patients with CIED infection.

Practical Considerations for Cardiac Electronic Devices Reimplantation Following Transvenous Lead Extraction Due to Related Endocarditis

Despite progress in implantation technology and prophylactic measures, infection complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are still a major concern with negative impacts on patient outcomes and the health system's resources. Infective endocarditis (IE) represents one of the most threatening CIED-related infections associated with high mortality rates and requires prompt diagnosis and management. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE), combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy, has been validated as an effective approach to treat patients with CIED-related IE. Though early complete removal is undoubtedly recommended for CIED-related IE or systemic infection, device reimplantation still represents a clinical challenge in these patients at high risk of reinfection, with many gaps in the current knowledge and international guidelines. Based on the available literature data and authors' experience, this review aims to address the practical and clinical considerations regarding CIED reimplantation following lead extraction for related IE, focusing on the reassessment of CIED indication, procedure timing, and the reimplanted CIED type and site. A tailored, multidisciplinary approach involving clinical cardiologists, electrophysiologists, cardiac imaging experts, cardiac surgeons, and infectious disease specialists is crucial to optimize these patients' management and clinical outcomes.

Contemporary Features and Management of Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis is a rare but devastating disease. Morbidity and mortality rates have failed to improve despite new technological advances. The disease has evolved over time with new significant populations at risk-most notably those with prosthetic valves or implantable cardiovascular devices. These devices pose new challenges for achieving a timely and accurate diagnosis of infection. While the modified Duke criteria is accepted as the gold standard for diagnosing native valve endocarditis, it has been shown to have significantly inferior sensitivity when it comes to identifying infections related to right-heart endocarditis, prosthetic valves, and indwelling cardiac devices. Additionally, prosthetic valves and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices can exhibit shadowing and artifact, rendering transthoracic echocardiography and transesophageal echocardiography results inconclusive or even normal. Having a keen awareness of the varying clinical presentations, as well as emerging valvular imaging modalities such as F-fluorodeoxyglucose cardiac positron-emission tomography plus computed tomography, promises to improve the evaluation and diagnosis of infective endocarditis. However, indications for appropriate use of these studies and guidance on modern clinical management are still needed.

Low Utilization of Lead Extraction Among Patients With Infective Endocarditis and Implanted Cardiac Electronic Devices

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated infections are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. Guidelines have cited endocarditis as a Class I indication for transvenous lead removal/extraction (TLE) among patients with CIEDs.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to study utilization of TLE among hospital admissions with infective endocarditis using a nationally representative database.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), 25,303 admissions for patients with CIEDs and endocarditis between 2016 and 2019 were evaluated on the basis of International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision, Clinical-Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes.

RESULTS

Among admissions for patients with CIEDs and endocarditis, 11.5% were managed with TLE. The proportion undergoing TLE increased significantly from 2016 to 2019 (7.6% vs 14.9%; P trend < 0.001). Procedural complications were identified in 2.7%. Index mortality was significantly lower among patients managed with TLE (6.0% vs 9.5%; P < 0.001). Presence of Staphylococcus aureus infection, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and large hospital size were independently associated with TLE management. TLE management was less likely with older age, female sex, dementia, and kidney disease. After adjustment for comorbidities, TLE was independently associated with significantly lower odds of mortality (adjusted OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60 by multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.40-0.66 by propensity score matching).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of lead extraction among patients with CIEDs and endocarditis is low, even in the presence of low rates of procedural complications. Lead extraction management is associated with significantly lower mortality, and its use has trended upward between 2016 and 2019. Barriers to TLE for patients with CIEDs and endocarditis require investigation.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2022

This special article is the fifth in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, Dr Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief, Dr Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to author this series, which summarizes the key research papers in the electrophysiology (EP) field relevant to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiologists. These articles are shaping perioperative EP procedures and practices, such as pulsed-field ablation, cryoablation for first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation, advancements in conduction system pacing, safety issues related to smartphones and cardiac implantable electronic devices, and alterations in EP workflow as the world emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic. Special emphasis is placed on the implications of these advancements for the anesthetic care of patients undergoing EP procedures.

Feasibility and safety of a transvenous lead extraction program implementation in South America: Challenges, early outcomes, and global collaboration-A single-center experience

Background

Transvenous lead extraction is the standard of care for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) malfunction/infection-related removal. However, data on its performance and results in underdeveloped countries are limited.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to report the feasibility and efficacy of a lead extraction program in a tertiary hospital in Chile, South America.

Methods

Patients requiring CIED removal at the Electrophysiology Division of the Hospital las Higuera's were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes including procedure-related mortality, procedural success and failure, and cardiac and vascular complications were reported.

Results

A total of 15 patients were analyzed (median age 68 [interquartile range 52-75] years; 80% male). Patients with lead extraction difficulty index >10 represented 33% of patients. Infection was the indication for removal in all patients, with pocket infection (80%). Mechanical rotational tools were used in 66% of cases, and a total of 29 leads were removed. Procedural success was accomplished in 93% of cases. There was 1 (7%) intraprocedural complication and no procedure-related mortality.

Conclusions

The development of a lead management program is feasible, safe, and effective in underdeveloped countries.

Causes of Early Mortality After Transvenous Lead Removal

BACKGROUND

Recognition of the causes of early mortality (≤30 days) after transvenous lead removal (TLR) is an essential step for the development of quality improvement programs.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the causes of early mortality after TLR and to further understand the circumstances surrounding death after TLR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing TLR from January 1, 2001, to January 1, 2021, at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota; Phoenix, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida). Causes of death were identified through a detailed chart review of the electronic health record from within the Mayo Clinic system and outside records when available. The causes of death were further characterized based on whether it was related to the TLR procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 2,319 patients were included in the study. The overall 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 3% (n = 69). Among all 30-day deaths, infection was the most common primary cause of death (42%). This was followed by decompensated heart failure (17%), procedure-related death (10%), sudden cardiac arrest (7%), and respiratory failure (6%). The 30-day mortality rate directly due to complications associated with the TLR procedure was 0.3%. One-third of deaths (33%) occurred after discharge from the index hospitalization; among these, 43% were readmitted before their death, 35% died at home or at a nursing facility, and 22% were discharged on comfort care and died in hospice. The main reasons for readmission before death were sepsis and decompensated heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority (90%) of 30-day mortality after TLR was not due to complications associated with TLR procedures. The primary causes were infection and decompensated heart failure. This highlights the importance of increased emphasis on postprocedure management of infection and heart failure to reduce postoperative mortality, including after hospital discharge.

Percutaneous aspiration and removal of infected leadless pacemaker vegetation

INTRODUCTION

Leadless pacemakers represent an increasingly utilized alternative to traditional pacing methods in those with prior bacteremia or at high risk for infection. The acknowledged resistance to infection is illustrated by the exceedingly rare documentation of it.

METHODS

We present a case of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis with associated leadless pacemaker infection necessitating percutaneous aspiration of the device-associated vegetation followed by extraction of the leadless pacemaker.

RESULTS

Large vegetation associated with a leadless pacemaker was percutaneously aspirated with a vacuum-assisted aspiration device, followed by successful extraction of the leadless pacemaker.

CONCLUSION

While leadless pacemakers are seldom involved in infective endocarditis, ultrasound evaluation in high-risk patients with an undetermined source is reasonable. Before extraction, it is practical to consider aspiration of large associated vegetations with a vacuum-assisted device.

Vacuum-Implemented Removal of Lead Vegetations in Cardiac Device-Related Infective Endocarditis

When approaching infected lead removal in cardiac device-related infective endocarditis (CDRIE), a surgical consideration for large (>20 mm) vegetations is recommended. We report our experience with the removal of large CDRIE vegetations using the AngioVac system, as an alternative to conventional surgery. We retrospectively reviewed all infected lead extractions performed with a prior debulking using the AngioVac system, between October 2016 and April 2022 at our institution. A total of 13 patients presented a mean of 2(1) infected leads after a mean of 5.7(5.7) years from implantation (seven implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, four cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators, and two pacemakers). The AngioVac system was used as a venous−venous bypass in six cases (46.2%), venous−venous ECMO-like circuit (with an oxygenator) in five (38.5%), and venous−arterial ECMO-like circuit in two cases (15.4%). Successful (>70%) aspiration of the vegetations was achieved in 12 patients (92.3%) and an intraoperative complication (cardiac perforation) only occurred in 1 case (7.7%). Subsequent lead extraction was successful in all cases, either manually (38.5%) or using mechanical tools (61.5%). The AngioVac system is a promising effective and safe option for large vegetation debulking in CDRIE. Planning the extracorporeal circuit design may represent the optimal strategy to enhance the tolerability of the procedure and minimize adverse events.