Lead fixation mechanism impacts outcome of transvenous lead extraction: Data from the European Lead Extraction ConTRolled Registry

Long-Term Complications Related to Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used for a number of cardiac-related conditions, and it is estimated that over 300,000 CIEDs are placed annually in the US. With advances in technology surrounding these devices and expanding indications, CIEDs can remain implanted in patients for long periods of time. Although the safety profile of these devices has improved over time, both the incidence and prevalence of long-term complications are expected to increase. This review highlights pertinent long-term complications of CIEDs, including lead-related issues, device-related arrhythmias, inappropriate device therapies, and device-related infections. We also explore key clinical aspects of each complication, including common presentations, patient-specific and non-modifiable risk factors, diagnostic evaluation, and recommended management strategies. Our goal is to help spread awareness of CIED-related complications and to empower physicians to manage them effectively.

Cardiac Device Implantation: Techniques and Best Practices

Transvenous leads continue to be the standard means to deliver bradyarrhythmia and tachyarrhythmia device therapy. Risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) infection or complications of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) and mortality represent a complex interplay between non-modifiable patient-related factors and actionable implant-related characteristics or adverse events. Careful attention to patient screening, infection mitigation, lead selection, and implant technique may enhance safety of the index procedure and subsequent clinical management.

Computed tomography predictors of increased transvenous lead extraction difficulty

BACKGROUND

The ability of computed tomography (CT) characteristics to predict the difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an evolving subject.

OBJECTIVE

To identify CT characteristics associated with increased TLE difficulty.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing TLE at the University of California San Diego from January 2018 to February 2022 were analyzed, utilizing the UC San Diego Lead Extraction Registry. Patients underwent cardiac-gated chest CT scans with intravenous contrast; all scans were reviewed by a single radiologist. Lead extraction was performed per standard institutional protocol with the initial use of a laser sheath and crossover to a mechanical sheath as needed. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of individual lead-removal fluoroscopy time and mechanical sheath use, as markers of extraction difficulty.

RESULTS

A total of 343 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the study population was 63.8 ± 15.4 years; 71% were male. The mean lead dwell-in duration was 8.6 ± 5.7 years. In multivariable linear regression analysis, venous occlusion detected on CT was independently associated with higher individual lead-removal fluoroscopy time (p = 0.004), when adjusting for clinical characteristics such as lead dwell time. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, calcification and venous occlusion were independently associated with a higher need for mechanical sheath use during TLE (odds ratio:5.08, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.54-10.46) and (odds ratio:3.72, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.89-7.35), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing TLE, venous occlusion identified by chest CT is associated with increased fluoroscopy time. Patients with lead-associated calcification or venous occlusion detected by chest CT are each five and three times more likely to require crossover from laser to a mechanical sheath.

Extraction of lumenless pacing leads from the His bundle and left bundle branch area: outcomes of the high-volume centre

AIMS

The application of conduction system pacing (CSP) in clinical practice is growing, and the need for lead extraction will also increase. The data on outcomes and safety of CSP lead extraction are limited. The aim of this study was to assess procedural outcomes and safety of CSP lead removal.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-seven patients from the EXTRACT Registry with the indication for CSP lead removal were enrolled in the study conducted at the Department of Electrocardiology in Katowice, Poland. Extraction technique, outcomes, safety, and complication were evaluated. Forty-three (91.5%) leads were successfully removed, and 41 (87.2%) were removed with traction only. The dwelling time of 28 extracted leads was longer than 1 year, and the oldest extracted lead was implanted for 89 months. Seven (14.9%) leads were removed from the left bundle branch (LBB) area and 36 from the His bundle (HB). Transient complete atrioventricular block occurred during the procedure in two patients. In 27 out of 31 attempts (87.1%), new CSP leads were implanted: nine (33.3%) HB pacing leads and 18 (66.7%) LBB area pacing leads.

CONCLUSION

The CSP lead extraction is safe and feasible with a low complication rate and high rate of CSP lead reimplantation.

Percutaneous Extraction of Transvenous Permanent Pacemaker/Defibrillator Leads-A Single-Center Experience

Background and Objectives: The number of cardiac pacemakers being used has increased in recent decades, and this increase has led to a rise in device-related complications, requiring percutaneous device extraction. Our aim was to present our single-center clinical experience in percutaneous lead extractions. Materials and Methods: We analyzed an observational retrospective cohort study of 93 patients for the transvenous removal of a total of 163 endocardial leads. We evaluated the device details, indications, lead characteristics, extraction methods, complications, reimplantation procedure, follow-up data, effectiveness, and safety. Results: Patients' mean age was 68.6 ± 11.6 years. Lead extraction indications were pocket infection in 33 (35.5%), lead dysfunction in 33 (35.5%), and system upgrade in 21 (23%) cases, and lead endocarditis in 6 (6%) cases. The duration from implantation to extraction time was a detected median of 43 (24-87) months. The most common retracted lead type was the RV defibrillator lead (62%), and the lead fixation type was active for one hundred (61%) patients. A new device was inserted in 74 (80%) patients, and the device type was most commonly a CRT-D (61%). Patients were followed up at a median of 17 (8-36) months, and 18 patients (19%) died at follow-up. Complete procedural success was obtained in 78 (84%) patients, and clinical procedural success was obtained in 83 (89%) patients. Procedural failure was detected in 15 (16%) patients. Major and minor complications were detected in 10 (11%) and 6 (6.5%) patients, respectively. The most common minor complication was pocket hematoma. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that transvenous lead extraction has a high success rate with an acceptable risk of procedural complications. The simple manual traction method has a high rate of procedural success, despite a high dwell time of the lead.

LECOM (Lead Extraction COMplexity): A New Scoring System for Predicting a Difficult Procedure

(1) Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) can become far more complex when unanticipated difficulties arise. The aim was to develop a simple scoring system that allows for the prediction of the difficulty and complexity of this significant procedure. (2) Methods: Based on analysis of 3741 TLE procedures with and without complicating factors (extended fluoroscopy time, need for second-line instruments, and advanced techniques and instruments), a five-point Complex Indicator of Difficulty of (TLE) Procedure (CID-TLEP) scale was developed. Two or more points on the CID-TLEP scale indicate a higher level of procedure complexity. (3) Results: Patient age below 51 years at first CIED implantation, number of abandoned leads, number of previous procedures, passive fixation and multiple leads to be extracted, and a ratio of dwell time of oldest lead to patient age during TLE of >0.13 are significant predictors of higher levels of lead extraction complexity. The ROC analysis demonstrates that a point total (being the sum of the odds ratios of the above variables) of >9.697 indicates a 21.83% higher probability of complex TLE (sensitivity 74.08%, specificity 74.46%). Finally, a logistic function was calculated, and we constructed a simple equation for lead extraction complexity that can predict the probability of a difficult procedure. The risk of complex extraction (as a percentage) is calculated as [1/(1 + 55.34 · 0.754X)] · 100 (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The LECOM score can effectively predict the risk of a difficult transvenous lead extraction procedure, and predicting the probability of a more complex procedure may help clinicians in planning lead removal and improving patient management.

Impact of fixation mechanism and helix retraction status on right ventricular lead extraction

Background

The impact of lead fixation mechanism on extractability is poorly characterized.

Objective

We aimed to compare the technical difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of active vs passive fixation right ventricular (RV) leads.

Methods

A total of 408 patients who underwent RV TLE by a single expert electrophysiologist at Oregon Health & Science University between October 2011 and June 2022 were identified and retrospectively analyzed; 331 (81%) had active fixation RV leads and 77 (19%) had passive fixation RV leads. The active fixation cohort was further stratified into those with successfully retracted helices (n = 181) and failed helix retraction (n = 109). A numerical system (0-9) devised using 6 procedural criteria quantified a technical extraction score (TES) for each RV TLE. The TES was compared between groups.

Results

Helix retraction was successful in ≥55% of active fixation TLEs. The mean TES for active-helix retracted, active-helix non-retracted, and passive fixation groups was 1.8, 3.5, and 3.7, respectively. The TES of the active-helix retracted group was significantly lower than those of the active-helix non-retracted group (adjusted P < .01) and the passive fixation group (adjusted P < .01). There was no significant difference in TES between the passive fixation and active-helix non-retracted groups in multivariate analysis (P = .18). The TLE success rate of the entire cohort was >97%, with a major complication rate of 0.5%.

Conclusion

TLE of active fixation leads where helical retraction is achieved presents fewer technical challenges than does passive fixation RV lead extraction; however, if the helix cannot be retracted, active and passive TLE procedures present similar technical challenges.

Transvenous lead extraction: Experience of the Tandem approach

AIMS

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is important in the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices but carries risk. It is most commonly completed from the superior access, often with 'bail-out' support via the femoral approach. Superior and inferior access may be used in tandem, which has been proposed as an advance in safety and efficacy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tandem approach.

METHOD

The 'Tandem' procedure entailed grasping of the targeted lead in the right atrium to provide countertraction as a rotational dissecting sheath was advanced over the lead from the subclavian access. Consecutive 'Tandem' procedures performed by a single operator between December 2020 and March 2023 in a single large-volume TLE centre were included and compared with the conventional superior approach (control) using 1:1 propensity score matching; patients were statistically matched for demographics.

RESULTS

The Tandem in comparison with the conventional approach extracted leads of much greater dwell time (148.9 ± 79 vs. 108.6 ± 77 months, P < 0.01) in a shorter procedure duration (96 ± 36 vs. 127 ± 67 min, P < 0.01) but requiring more fluoroscopy (16.4 ± 10.9 vs. 10.8 ± 14.9 min, P < 0.01). The Tandem and control groups had similar clinical (100% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.07) and complete (94.8% vs. 92.8%, P = 0.42) success, with comparable minor (4% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.72) and major (0% vs. 4%, P = 0.25) complications; procedural (0% vs. 1.3%, P = 1) and 30-day (1.3% vs. 4%, P = 0.62) mortality were also similar.

CONCLUSION

The Tandem procedure is as safe and effective as the conventional TLE. It can be applied to leads of a long dwell time with a potentially shorter procedure duration.

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, factors affecting procedural difficulty

BACKGROUND

A complex transvenous lead extraction (TLE) procedure could be associated with lower success and higher complication rates in inexperienced hands. In this study, we aim to assess the factors that determine procedural difficulty in TLE.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 200 consecutive patients undergoing TLE in a single referral centre from June 2020 to December 2021. Lead extraction difficulty was assessed by the success of simple manual traction with or without a locking stylet, the need for advanced extraction tools and the number of tools required to extract the lead. Logistic and linear regression analyses were used to determine the factors independently affecting these 3 parameters.

RESULTS

363 leads were extracted from 200 patients (79% males, mean age 66.85 years). The indication for TLE was device-related infection in 51.5%. Multivariate analysis revealed the lead indwelling time to be the only factor affecting the 3 parameters of difficulty. Passive fixation leads and dual coil leads increased procedural difficulty by affecting 2 parameters each. Factors that affected one parameter included infected leads, coronary sinus leads, older age of the patient and a history of valvular heart disease, all associated with a simpler procedure. Right ventricular leads were associated with a more complex one.

CONCLUSION

The most important factor that increased TLE procedural difficulty was a longer lead indwelling time, followed by passive fixation and dual-coil leads. Other contributing factors were the presence of infection, coronary sinus leads, older patients, a history of valvular heart disease and right ventricular leads.

Mechanical extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads with a dwell time of more than 10 years: insights from a single high-volume centre

AIMS

To analyze and compare the effectiveness and safety of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads with a dwell time of >10 years (Group A) vs. younger leads (Group B) using mechanical extraction systems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between October 2011 and July 2022, we performed TLE in 318 patients. Forty-six (14.4%) extracted ICD leads in 46 (14.5%) patients that had been implanted for >10 years. The median dwell time of all extracted ICD leads was 5.9 years. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related infection was an indication for TLE in 31.8% of patients. Complete ICD leads removal and complete procedural success in both groups were similar (95.7% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056% and 95.6% in Group A vs. 99.6% in Group B, P = 0.056, respectively). We did not find a significant difference between major and minor complication rates in both groups (6.5% in Group A vs. 1.5% in Group B and 2.2% in Group A vs. 1.8% in Group B, P = 0.082, respectively). One death associated with the TLE procedure was recorded in Group B.

CONCLUSION

The TLE procedures involving the extraction of old ICD leads were effective and safe. The outcomes of ICD lead removal with a dwell time of >10 years did not differ significantly compared with younger ICD leads. However, extraction of older ICD leads required more frequent necessity for utilizing multiple extraction tools, more experience and versatility of the operator, and increased surgery costs.

Step by Step through the Years-High vs. Low Energy Lead Extraction Using Advanced Extraction Techniques

Background: Limited data is available about the outcome of TLE in patients with vs. without high energy leads in the last decade. Methods: This is an analysis of consecutive patients undergoing TLE at a high-volume TLE centre from 2001 to 2021 using the stepwise approach. Baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcome of patients with high energy lead (ICD group) vs. without high energy lead (non-ICD group) were compared. Results: Out of 667 extractions, 991 leads were extracted in 405 procedures (60.7%) in the ICD group and 439 leads in 262 procedures (39.3%) in the non-ICD group. ICD patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs. 74 years) and were significantly less often female (18.1% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.005 for both). Advanced extraction tools were used significantly more often in the ICD group (73.2% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in the successful removal (98.8% vs. 99.2%) or complications (4.7% vs. 3.1%) between the groups (p > 0.2 for both). Discussion: Using the stepwise approach, overall procedural success was high and complication rate was low in a high-volume centre. In patients with a high energy lead, the TLE procedure was more complex, but outcome was similar to comparator patients.