Knowledge gaps, lack of confidence, and system barriers to guideline implementation among European physicians managing patients with CIED lead or infection complications: a European Heart Rhythm Association/European Society of Cardiology educational needs assessment survey

Real-World Evidence on Lead Extraction Following Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) Infections and Its Association With 1-year Mortality

Complete lead extraction is strongly recommended for managing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. However, actual practices and associated patient outcomes in real-world settings are not well documented. This study aims to quantify use of lead extraction among Australian patients with CIED infections. In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed linked hospital and mortality data from New South Wales (July 2008 to September 2022). We included patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with CIED infections, identified using diagnosis codes T82.71 (from July 2017 onwards) and T82.7 with relevant supplementary codes prior to July 2017. We quantified the association between lead extraction and 1-year mortality using time-varying Cox proportional hazards regression models. We included 2,339 patients (mean age 72.5 years, 31.5% female) who were hospitalized with CIED infections, of which 24.0% (n = 561) underwent lead extraction within 30 days. The likelihood of lead extraction was higher among those with sepsis, endocarditis, Staphylococcus aureus infection, prior revision/replacement CIED procedures, and patients admitted to private hospitals. In contrast, older patients (aged 75+ years), female patients, and those with chronic kidney disease were less likely to undergo lead extraction. Lead extraction was associated with reduced 1-year mortality rate (adjusted-HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.81), with evidence of greater survival benefit in patients with sepsis and lesser benefit in older patients and females. In conclusion, utilization of lead extraction was limited among patients with CIED infections. Lead extraction was linked to significantly reduced mortality rate, highlighting the importance of improving adherence to recommended management for patients with CIED infections.

State-of-the-Art Review: Complexities in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Contemporary Practical Approach

Cardiac implantable electronic device infections (CIEDIs) present substantial challenges for infectious diseases specialists, encompassing diagnosis, management, and complex decision making involving patients, families, and multidisciplinary teams. This review, guided by a common clinical case presentation encountered in daily practice, navigates through the diagnostic process, management strategies in unique scenarios, long-term follow-up, and critical discussions required for CIEDIs.

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.

Impact of hospital lead extraction volume on management of cardiac implantable electronic device-associated infective endocarditis

AIMS

Utilization of transvenous lead extraction/removal (TLE) for the management of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated infective endocarditis (IE) remains low. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of hospital TLE procedural volume on TLE utilization and outcomes for patients with CIED-associated IE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we evaluated 21 545 admissions for patients (mean age 70 years, 39% female) with CIEDs hospitalized with IE at TLE centres. Hospitals were categorized based on annual volume tertiles: (i) low-volume (1-17 TLEs/year), (ii) medium-volume (18-45 TLEs/year), and (iii) high-volume centres (>45 TLEs/year). Between 2016 and 2019, 57% of admissions in the study were to low-volume TLE centres. Transvenous lead extraction/removal was performed during 6.9, 19.3, and 26% of admissions for CIED-associated IE at low-, medium-, and high-volume TLE centres, respectively (P < 0.001). After adjustment for age and comorbidities, hospitalization for IE at high-volume centres was independently associated with TLE when compared with low-volume centres (adjusted odds ratio 4.26; 95% confidence interval 3.53-5.15). Transvenous lead extraction/removal-associated complication rates were similar at 2.5, 2.3, and 3.4% at low-, medium-, and high-volume centres, respectively (P = 0.493). Overall inpatient mortality during admissions to low-, medium-, and high-volume centres was also similar.

CONCLUSION

Admissions to high-volume TLE centres were associated with higher utilization of TLE for management of CIED-associated IE. Transvenous lead extraction/removal-associated complications and mortality among patients hospitalized with CIED-associated IE were similar when stratified by hospital TLE volume, but this needs to be considered in context of significant differences in patient comorbidity burden between centres.

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.

Outcomes of complete removal versus conservative therapy in cardiac implantable electronic device infections - A systematic review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete removal of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is recommended in patients with CIED infections, including both systemic and localized pocket infection. The aim of the study was to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of evidence relating to the effect of complete CIED extraction in patients with a CIED infection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting short- and mid-term outcomes in patients who had a device infection or infective endocarditis (IE) and underwent complete removal of the cardiac device (generator and leads) compared to those who received conservative therapy (no removal, partial removal, local antibiotic infiltration or isolated antibiotic therapy). The primary outcome was reinfection/relapse. Secondary outcomes were short-term (30-day/in-hospital) and mid-term (mean follow-up: 43.0 months) mortality. Random effects model was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis. Patients with complete CIED extraction (n = 905) exhibited a lower rate of relapse/re-infection compared to patients (n = 195) with a conservative treatment approach (n = 195, OR 0.02, 95%CI 0.01-0.06, p < 0.0001, mean-follow-up: 16.1 months). Additionally, these patients displayed a lower short- (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.23-0.69, p = 0.01) and mid-term (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.34-0.78, p = 0.002) mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis indicates that patients with a CIED infection who undergo complete CIED extraction exhibit a lower rate of relapse/re-infection. Additionally, a lower short- and mid-term mortality is observed, although it is acknowledged that this outcome may be influenced by treatment allocation bias.

Outcome and microbiological findings of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device infection

INTRODUCTION

Infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a multifactorial disease that leads to increased morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to analyze patient-, disease- and treatment-related characteristics including microbiological and bacterial spectrum according to survival status and to identify risk factors for 1- and 3-year mortality in patients with local and systemic CIED infection.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from patients with CIED-related local or systemic infection undergoing successful transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Survival status as well as incidence and cause of rehospitalization were recorded. Microbiology and antibiotics used as first-line therapy were compared according to mortality. Independent risk factors for 1- and 3-year mortality were determined.

RESULTS

Data from 243 Patients were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 2.5%. Mortality rates at 30 days, 1- and 3 years were 4.1%, 18.1% and 30%, respectively. Seventy-four (30.5%) patients had systemic bacterial infection. Independent risk factors for 1-year mortality included age (OR 1.05 [1.01-1.10], p = 0.014), NT-proBNP at admission (OR 4.18 [1.81-9.65], p = 0.001), new onset or worsened tricuspid regurgitation after TLE (OR 6.04 [1.58-23.02], p = 0.009), and systemic infection (OR 2.76 [1.08-7.03], p = 0.034), whereas systemic infection was no longer an independent risk factor for 3-year mortality. Staphylococcus aureus was found in 18.1% of patients who survived and in 25% of those who died, p = 0.092. There was a high proportion of methicillin-resistant strains among coagulase-negative staphylococci (16.5%) compared to Staphylococcus aureus (1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Staphylococci are the most common causative germs of CIED-infection with coagulase-negative staphylococci showing higher resistance rates to antibiotics. The independent risk factors for increased long-term mortality could contribute to individual risk stratification and well-founded treatment decisions in clinical routine. Especially the role of tricuspid regurgitation as a complication after TLE should be investigated in future studies.

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.

Leadless Pacemaker Infection Risk in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: A Case Series and Literature Review

(1) Background: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been proposed as a reimplantation strategy in pacing-dependent patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction for infection. In this study, we analysed the risk of LP infection when this device is implanted before lead extraction. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective study including patients who underwent LP implantation between 2017 and 2022. Patients were divided in two groups according to whether LP was implanted following CIED extraction for infection (Group 1) or other indications (Group 2). The primary aim was to describe the risk of LP infection. (3) Results: We included in this study 49 patients with a median age of 81 [20-94] years, mostly males (36, 73%). In Group 1 patients, 17 cases (85%) showed systemic CIED infections, and 11 (55%) had positive lead cultures. Most Group 1 cases (n = 14, 70%) underwent one stage of LP implantation and CIED extraction. Mortality rate during follow-up was 20% (nine patients). Patients were followed up for a median of 927 [41-1925], days and no cases of definite or suspected LP infections were identified. (4) Conclusions: The risk of LP infection was extremely low. LP appears as a potential option for reimplantation in this setting and should be considered in pacing-dependent patients at a high risk of CIED infection recurrence.

Extraction outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads vary by manufacturer and model family

AIMS

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads is considered challenging. The structure of each ICD leads is variable between manufacturer and model families. The net impact of lead family on the safety and effectiveness of TLE is poorly characterized. We assessed the safety and efficacy of ICD TLE and the impact of manufacturer ICD model family on the outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study cohort included all consecutive patients with ICD who underwent TLE between 2013 and 2022 and are enrolled in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry. A total of 885 ICD leads (median implant duration 8 years) in 810 patients were included. Complete ICD TLE success was achieved in 97.2% of the leads (n = 860) and in 98.0% of the patients (n = 794). Major complications occurred in 22 patients (2.7%). Complete procedural success rate varied by manufacturer and lead family; Medtronic 98.9%, Abbott 95.9%, Boston Scientific 95.0%, Biotronik 91.2%, P = 0.03, and Linox family leads had the lowest, 89.7% P = 0.02. Multivariable predictors of incomplete ICD lead removal included ICD lead age > 10 years and Linox family lead. Multivariable predictors of major complications included ICD lead age > 15 years and longer lead extraction time, and predictors of all-cause mortality within 30 days included lead extraction for infection, end-stage renal disease, and higher New York Heart Association functional class.

CONCLUSION

Complete and safe ICD lead removal rate by TLE is extremely high but varied by manufacturer and lead family. Linox family lead and >10 years lead age were independent predictors of incomplete lead removal.

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.

Transvenous lead extraction versus surgical lead extraction or conservative treatment for cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Propensity score-weighted analyses of a nationwide claim-based database

INTRODUCTION

Infection is one of the most important complications associated with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy. The number of reports comparing the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), surgical lead extraction, and conservative treatment for CIED infections using a real-world database is limited. This study investigated the association between the treatment strategies for CIED infections and their outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3605 patients with CIED infections admitted to 681 hospitals using a nationwide claim-based database collected between April 2012 and March 2018.

RESULTS

We divided the 3605 patients into TLE (n = 938 [26%]), surgical lead extraction (n = 182 [5.0%]), and conservative treatment (n = 2485 [69%]) groups. TLE was performed more frequently in younger patients and at larger hospitals (p for trend < .001 for both). The rate of TLE increased during the study period, whereas that of surgical lead extraction decreased (p for trend < .001 for both). TLE was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (vs. surgical lead extraction: odds ratio [OR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.70; vs. conservative treatment: OR, 0.45; 95% CI: 0.22-0.94) and lower 30-day readmission rates (vs. surgical lead extraction: OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06-0.56; vs. conservative treatment: OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13) in propensity score-weighted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 26% of patients hospitalized for CIED infections received TLE. TLE was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day recurrence rates than surgical lead extraction and conservative treatment, suggesting that TLE should be more widely recommended as a first-line treatment for CIED infections.

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.

Early Lead Extraction for Infected Implanted Cardiac Electronic Devices: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Infection remains a serious complication associated with the cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), leading to substantial clinical and economic burden globally. This review assesses the burden of cardiac implantable electronic device infection (CIED-I), evidence for treatment recommendations, barriers to early diagnosis and appropriate therapy, and potential solutions. Multiple clinical practice guidelines recommended complete system and lead removal for CIED-I when appropriate. CIED extraction for infection has been consistently reported with high success, low complication, and very low mortality rates. Complete and early extraction was associated with significantly better clinical and economic outcome compared with no or late extraction. However, significant gaps in knowledge and poor recommendation compliance have been reported. Barriers to optimal management may include diagnostic delay, knowledge gaps, and limited access to expertise. A multipronged approach, including education of all stakeholders, a CIED-I alert system, and improving access to experts, could help bring paradigm shift in the treatment of this serious condition.

Clinician use of data elements from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in clinical practice

Background

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) capture an abundance of data for clinicians to review and integrate into the clinical decision-making process. The multitude of data from different device types and vendors presents challenges for viewing and using the data in clinical practice. Efforts are needed to improve CIED reports by focusing on key data elements used by clinicians.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to uncover the extent to which clinicians use the specific types of data elements from CIED reports in clinical practice and explore clinicians' perceptions of CIED reports.

Methods

A brief, web-based, cross-sectional survey study was deployed using snowball sampling from March 2020 through September 2020 to clinicians who are involved in the care of patients with CIEDs.

Results

Among 317 clinicians, the majority specialized in electrophysiology (EP) (80.1%), were from North America (88.6%), and were white (82.2%). Over half (55.3%) were physicians. Arrhythmia episodes and ventricular therapies rated the highest among 15 categories of data presented, and nocturnal or resting heart rate and heart rate variability were rated the lowest. As anticipated, clinicians specializing in EP reported using the data significantly more than other specialties across nearly all categories. A subset of respondents offered general comments describing preferences and challenges related to reviewing reports.

Conclusion

CIED reports contain an abundance of information that is important to clinicians; however, some data are used more frequently than others, and reports could be streamlined for users to improve access to key information and facilitate more efficient clinical decision making.

Repeat Transvenous Lead Extraction-Predictors, Effectiveness, Complications and Long-Term Prognostic Significance

BACKGROUND

Data regarding repeat transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are scarce. The aim of study was to explore the frequency of repeat TLE, its safety, predisposing factors, as well as effectiveness of repeat procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a large single-center database of 3654 TLEs.

RESULTS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (193, i.e., 5,28% among 3654 TLEs). Subsequent re-extractions occurred in 12.21% of the patients. Lead failure was the most common cause of re-extraction (51.16%). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who were older at first implantation [HR = 0.987; p = 0.003], had infection-related TLE [HR = 0.392; p < 0.001] and complete procedural success [HR = 0.544; p = 0.034] were less likely to undergo repeat TLE. Functional leads left in place for continuous use [HR = 1.405; p = 0.012] or superfluous leads left in place (abandoned) [HR = 2.370; p = 0.011] were associated with an increased risk of undergoing a repeat procedure. Overall mortality in patients with repeat TLE and subsequent re-extraction in the entire FU period was similar to that in patients without a history of re-extraction [HR = 0.949; p = 0.480].

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat TLE was a rare occurrence (5.28%) among TLEs. Left of both active and nonactive leads during TLE increased the risk of re-extraction. Re-extraction has no effect on the long-term mortality.

Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is considered as more risky. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TLE in patients with infected CRT systems. Methods: Data of 3468 patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center in years 2006−2021 were analyzed. The clinical and procedural parameters as well as the efficacy and safety of TLE were compared between patients with infected CRT and pacemakers (PM) and ICD systems. Results: Infectious indications for TLE occurred in 1138 patients, including 150 infected CRT (112 CRT-D and 38 CRT-P). The general health condition of CRT patients was worse with higher Charlson’s comorbidity index. The number of extracted leads was higher in the CRT group, but implant duration was significantly longer in the PM than in the ICD and CRT groups (98.93 vs. 55.26 vs. 55.43 months p < 0.01). The procedure was longer in duration, more difficult, and more complex in patients with pacemakers than in those in the CRT group. The occurrence of major complications and clinical and procedural success as well as procedure-related death did not show any relationship to the type of CIED device. Mortality at more than one-year follow-up after TLE was significantly higher among patients with CRT devices (22.7% vs. 8.7%) than among those in the PM group. Conclusion: Despite the greater burden of lead and comorbidities, the complexity and efficiency of removing infected CRT systems is no more dangerous than removing other infected systems. The duration of the implant seems to play a dominant role.

Transvenous Lead Extraction without Procedure-Related Deaths in 1000 Consecutive Patients: A Single-Center Experience

Background

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is now a first-line technique for the treatment of complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of the study was to demonstrate that it is possible to safely perform difficult TLE procedures with a maximum reduction of peri-procedural major complications.

Methods

A total of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing TLE in a single high-volume center from 2016 to 2019 were studied. All procedures were performed in a hybrid room or operating room by a specialized TLE team. TLE was performed under general anesthesia and monitored by transesophageal echocardiography, and the operating room was suitably equipped for immediate surgical intervention. The effectiveness and safety of the procedures were assessed, with particular emphasis on major complications.

Results

In all, 1952 leads with the mean implant duration of 111.7 ± 77.6 months had been extracted. Complete procedural success of patients was achieved in 95.9% and clinical success in 99.1%. Major complications, predominantly cardiac tamponade (63.3%), occurred in 22 patients (2.2%). Rapid diagnosis and immediate intervention were the key to a 100% survival in patients with this complication.

Conclusion

Performing procedures in a hybrid operating room under general anesthesia in the presence of a cardiac surgeon and with the use of transesophageal echocardiography significantly improves the safety of transvenous lead extraction.

Current practice in transvenous lead extraction in Latin America: Latin American Heart Rhythm Association survey

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is standard of care for the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device infection or lead-related complications. Currently, objective data on TLE in Latin America is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current practice standards in Latin American centers performing TLE.

METHODS

An online survey was sent through the mailing list of the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society. Online reminders were sent through the mailing list; duplicate answers were discarded. The survey was available for 1 month, after which no more answers were accepted.

RESULTS

A total of 48 answers were received, from 44 different institutions (39.6% from Colombia, 27.1% from Brazil), with most respondents (82%) being electrophysiologists. Twenty-nine institutions (66%) performed <10 lead extractions/year, with 7 (16%) institutions not performing lead extraction. Although most institutions in which lead extraction is performed reported using several tools, mechanical rotating sheaths were cited as the main tool (66%) and only 13% reported the use of laser sheaths. Management of infected leads was performed according to current guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This survey is the first attempt to provide information on TLE procedures in Latin America and could provide useful information for future prospective registries. According to our results, the number of centers performing high volume lead extraction in Latin America is smaller than that reported in other continents, with most interventions performed using mechanical tools. Future prospective registries assessing acute and long-term success are needed.

Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are potentially life-saving treatments for several cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Despite dissemination of recommended strategies for prevention of device infections, such as administration of antibiotics before implantation, infection rates continue to rise resulting in escalating health care costs. New trials conveying important steps for better prevention of device infection and an EHRA consensus paper were recently published. This document will review the role of various preventive measures for CIED infection, emphasizing the importance of adhering to published recommendations. The document aims to provide guidance on how to prevent CIED infections in clinical practice by considering modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors that may be present pre-, peri-, and/or post-procedure.