Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing add-on pacing/sensing lead vs. ICD lead implantation for failed IS-1/DF-1 ICD leads: a single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Intracardiac defibrillator/cardioverter (ICD) is a cornerstone device for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Lead failure (LF) is one of the most important long-term complications. In this study, we sought to investigate mid-to-long term clinical, device and lead characteristics of patients who have undergone pacing sensing lead (PSL) implantation for an ICD LF and compare them to the patients who have undergone a new ICD lead implantation.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single centre, case-control study, we have screened all ICD patients presenting with LF. Patients with IS-1/DF-1 ICD leads with intact high-voltage conductor were included in the study group, while other patients were included in the control arm. Study group patients underwent PSL implantation, control group patients underwent ICD lead implantation.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included in each arm of the study. The mean duration of follow-up after intervention was similar in both groups (47.6 months ± 20.4 vs. 46.1 months ± 25.7, p = .808). The total failure rate was not different between two groups (p = .640). Rate of high-voltage conductor disfunction was also similar between two arms: 1 (3.3%) in PSL arm and 0 in control arm (p = .303).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of a PSL for IS-1/DF-1 ICD LF with normal high-voltage conductor measurements is a viable treatment option with similar long-term results to addition of a new ICD lead. This approach is potentially less costly, technically less demanding, and, in case of concomitant extraction procedure, associated with less acute complication risk.

Evolution of Procedure Indication and Cardiovascular Risk in Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background: The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) to treat tachy- and bradyarrhythmia has significantly increased over the past decades. Consequently, transvenous lead extractions (TLE) have been performed more frequently, particularly in the treatment of device infection or malfunction. We aimed to evaluate the development of procedure indications and cardiovascular risk factors of patients undergoing TLE over time. Materials and methods: 277 TLE cases from 2013 to 2020 performed at the University Hospital Zurich were included in this retrospective analysis. Patient charts and follow-up letters were screened for procedure indication and cardiovascular risk factors to evaluate trends over time. Results: 502 leads were extracted in 273 patients. The main indications for TLE remained lead dysfunction (48.7%) and infection (31.4%) throughout the investigated period; however, infections were less and device upgrade more frequently encountered indications for TLE over time. Mean patient age at the time of TLE (64.0 ± 0.9 in the entire sample) decreased over time, while the incidence of chronic kidney disease (33.6%), heart failure (48.6%), or diabetes mellitus (22%) demonstrated an increasing trend. Conclusions: The main indications for TLE remain device malfunction and infection, while device upgrade was increasingly encountered as an indication for TLE in recent years. Over time, patients undergoing TLE were increasingly younger and more often presented with cardiovascular risk factors.

What physicians do in case of a failure of the pace-sense part of a defibrillation lead : Survey in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

BACKGROUND

The possible treatment strategies for defects of the pace-sense (P/S) part of a defibrillation lead are either implantation of a new high-voltage (HV)-P/S lead, with or without extraction of the malfunctioning lead, or implantation of a P/S lead.

METHODS

We conducted a Web-based survey across cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) centers to investigate their procedural practice and decision-making process in cases of failure of the P/S portion of defibrillation leads. In particular, we focused on the question of whether the integrity of the HV circuit is confirmed by a test shock before decision-making. The questionnaire included 14 questions and was sent to 951 German, 341 Austrian, and 120 Swiss centers.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 183 of the 1412 centers surveyed (12.7% response rate). Most centers (90.2%) do not conduct a test shock to confirm the integrity of the HV circuit before decision-making. Procedural practice in lead management varies depending on the presentation of lead failure and whether the center applies a test shock. In centers that do not conduct a test shock, the majority (69.9%) implant a new HV-P/S lead. Most centers (61.7%) that test the integrity of the HV system implant a P/S lead. The majority of centers favor DF-4 connectors (74.1%) over DF-1 connectors (25.9%) at first CIED implantation.

CONCLUSION

Either implanting a new HV-P/S lead or placing an additional P/S lead are selected strategies if the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure is localized to the P/S portion. However, conducting a test shock to confirm the integrity of the HV component is rarely performed.

Outcomes 1 Year After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Abandonment Versus Explantation for Unused or Malfunctioning Leads: A Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

BACKGROUND

Patients with an unused or malfunctioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead may have the lead either abandoned or explanted; yet there are limited data on the comparative acute and longer-term safety of these 2 approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined in-hospital events among 24 908 subject encounters using propensity score 1:1 matching for ICD lead abandonment or explantation in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry (April 2010 to June 2014). Relative to patients undergoing lead abandonment, patients undergoing lead explantation had more in-hospital procedure-related complications: 2.19% (n=273) versus 3.77% (n=469; P<0.001), respectively. Similarly, patients undergoing lead explantation had slightly higher rates of in-hospital death: 0.21% (n=26) versus 0.64% (n=80; P<0.001), respectively. At 1 year in a Medicare subset for survival, there was a trend of increased mortality in the explantation group (11% versus 8%; P=0.06). In the Medicare subset analyzed for postprocedure complications, there was no difference with respect to 6-month bleeding (4.80% in both the groups), tamponade (0.38% versus 0.58%), infection (1.34% versus 3.07%), upper extremity thrombosis (0.77% versus 0.96%), pulmonary embolism (0.38% versus 0.96%), or urgent surgery (1.15% for both the groups; P>0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

After matching, patients undergoing removal of an unused or malfunctioning ICD lead had slightly higher in-hospital complications and deaths than those with a lead abandonment strategy. Although the 1-year mortality risk was slightly higher in the lead explantation group, this difference was not statistically significant and may be explained by chance.