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

A Case of Very Early Lead Fracture in an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: Management and Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) lead fractures are rare but serious complications, often leading to inappropriate shocks. The early occurrence of such fractures post-implantation is exceptionally uncommon.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We present a case of a 53-year-old male with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who experienced an inappropriate shock due to a lead fracture just 4 days after ICD implantation. The fractured lead was successfully extracted and replaced using a gooseneck snare passed through an oversized TightRail with no immediate complications.

CONCLUSION

Early lead fractures can occur shortly after ICD implantation, leading to inappropriate shocks. Successful management, including extraction and reimplantation, is possible even in these early cases. Clinicians should remain vigilant, and remote monitoring can play a crucial role in the timely detection of such complications.

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.

Effective and safe mechanical transvenous lead extraction in a low-volume center

Background

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of cardiac implantable electronic devices was once deemed highly risky by high-volume centers. However, advancements in technology have significantly reduced the risk, making TLE a safer procedure in electrophysiology.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of mechanical TLEs in a low-volume center with a single operator.

Methods

This study retrospectively accessed electronic medical records from the Tulane University School of Medicine system in New Orleans, Louisiana, and included patients who received mechanical TLE from 2016 to 2023. We analyzed the indications for TLE, patient characteristics, lead characteristics, success rate, and complications.

Results

We included 149 consecutive mechanical TLEs with an average implant duration of 105 months. A total of 53.7% (80) of TLEs were indicated for infectious reasons, and 37.6% (56) were high-voltage leads. Clinical success and complete procedural success rates were both 94.6% with no procedure-related mortality or major complications. The periprocedural mortality rate was 1.25% (1). Minor complications included a left chest pocket hematoma, a left groin hematoma, and urinary retention.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of mechanical TLEs performed in a low-volume center are comparable with those in high-volume centers.

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

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.

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.

Discussing the Prognosis and Complications of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED): A Systematic Review

An increase in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and undoubtedly the complications brought on by these devices coincide with an increase in cardiovascular disorders, particularly heart rhythm abnormalities. The safest procedure to extract these devices is transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Thus, this systematic review aimed to summarize the possibility of success rates and the common complications that could arise during the surgery. Full-text publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and ScienceDirect were used in this study, which was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventeen studies were reviewed for this systematic review after being screened by title, abstract, full-text availability, and quality appraisal assessment. Heart and vascular tears, along with tricuspid regurgitation (TR), are common adverse events. Pulmonary embolism, hemothorax, hemopericardium, and ghost appearance in echo are less common consequences. In addition, the longer the dwelling time of the leads, the greater the chance of infection due to an increase in lead adhesions and fibrous tissue that has made the procedure unsafe as time passes. However, we concluded that TLE is a successful method across all age groups with an excellent probability of clinical and procedural success in a majority of studies.