Utility and safety of temporary pacing using active fixation leads and externalized re-usable permanent pacemakers after lead extraction

Case Report: Temporary pacing using active fixation lead and invasive electrophysiology studies for immune checkpoint inhibitor associated reversible advanced atrioventricular block

A case of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)-associated myocarditis with reversible advanced atrioventricular block (AVB) was reported. We innovatively used active fixation lead connected to an external device for prolonged temporary pacing until atrioventricular conduction recovered. Invasive electrophysiology studies were performed to evaluate atrioventricular conduction in detail. Long-term follow-up for nearly 120-days and repeated long-term electrocardiography was conducted to ensure the conduction system was truly recovered.

Atrioventricular Synchrony Restoration Aided by a Temporary Permanent Pacemaker in Right Ventricular Infarction and Complete Heart Block

Pacemakers are effective treatments for a variety of bradyarrhythmias. Cardiac pacemakers generally consist of a pulse generator and one or more leads. The conventional temporary transvenous ventricular cardiac pacemaker utilizing a passive fixation lead is commonly associated with multiple complications such as increased infection rate, lead dislodgement, venous thrombosis, longer duration of hospital stay, and atrioventricular (AV) dyssynchrony. On the other hand, temporary permanent pacemakers (TPPM) utilize active fixation leads; hence, they provide lower capture thresholds, reliable pacing, lower rates of displacement, and fewer pacemaker-related infections. Here, we present a case of TPPM aiding AV synchrony restoration in complete heart block accompanying right ventricular (RV) infarction with refractory cardiogenic shock. Pacemakers are effective treatments for a variety of bradyarrhythmias. Cardiac pacemakers generally consist of a pulse generator and one or more leads. We present a case of TPPM aiding AV synchrony restoration in complete heart block accompanying RV infarction with refractory cardiogenic shock. TPPM pacing is a safe and effective technique for temporary bridge pacing to prevent AV dyssynchrony in hemodynamically unstable patients with cardiogenic shock from RV infarction and complete heart block. It also hastens recovery compared to a traditional single-chamber temporary pacemaker.

Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction in octogenarians using bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are well reported in the general population, However, data on safety, efficacy of TLE in octogenarians with a long lead dwell time, using powered extraction tools are limited. The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the safety, effectiveness of TLE in octogenarians using the bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths and mid-term outcome after TLE.

METHODS

The study population comprised 83 patients (78.3% male; mean age 85 ± 3 years; [range 80-94 years]) with 181 target leads. All the leads (mean implant duration 112 ± 77 months [range 12-377]) were extracted exclusively using the Evolution RL sheaths (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA).

RESULTS

The main indication for TLE was infection in 84.3% of cases. Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, per lead were 93.9% and 98.3%, respectively. Failure of lead extraction was seen in 1.7% of leads. The additional use of a snare was required in 8.4% of patients. Major complications occurred in one patient (1.2%). Thirty-day mortality after TLE was 6%. During a mean time follow-up of 22 ± 21 months, 24 patients (29%) died. No procedure-related mortality occurred. Predictors of mortality included ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 4.35; 95% CI 1.87-10.13; p = .001), left ventricularejection fraction ≤35% (HR 7.89; 95% CI 3.20-19.48; p < .001), and TLE for systemic infection (HR 4.24; 95% CI 1.69-10.66; p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

At experienced centers bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths combined with different mechanical tools and femoral approach allowreasonable success and safety in octogenarian with long lead dwell time. Patient's age should not influence the decision to extract or not the leads, although the 30-day and mid-term mortality are significant, especially in the present of specific comorbidities.

Outcomes of transvenous lead extraction of very old leads using bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths: Results of a multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Lead dwell time >10 years is a recognized predictor for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) failure and complications. Data on the efficacy and safety of TLE using the bidirectional rotational mechanical sheaths in patients with very old leads are lacking. In this multicenter study, we reported the outcomes of transvenous rotational mechanical lead extraction in patients with leads implanted for ≥10 years.

METHODS

A total of 441 leads (median: 159 months [135-197]; range: 120-487) in 189 consecutive patients were removed with the Evolution RL sheaths (Cook Medical, Bloomingtom, IN, USA) and mechanical ancillary tools supporting the procedures.

RESULTS

The main indication for TLE was infection in 74% of cases. Complete procedural success rate, clinical success rate, per lead were 94.8% and 98.2%, respectively. Failure of lead extraction was seen in 1.8% of leads. The additional use of a snare via the femoral approach was required in 9% of patients. Lead dwell time was the only predictor of incomplete led removal (odds ratio: 1.009; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.003-1.014; p = .002). Four major complication (2%) were encountered. During a mean time follow-up of 31 ± 27 months, 21 patients (11%) died. No procedure-related mortality occurred. Predictors of mortality included severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR]: 8.06; 95% CI: 2.99-21.73; p = .001), TLE for infection (HR: 8.0; 95% CI: 1.04-62.5; p = .045), diabetes (HR: 3.7; 95% CI: 1.48-9.5; p = .005), and previous systemic infection (HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.17-8.24; p = .022). Incomplete lead removal or failure lead extraction did not impact on survival during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that the use of bidirectional rotational TLE mechanical sheaths combined with different mechanical tools and femoral approach allows reasonable success and safety in patients with very old leads at experienced specialized centers.

Concomitant leadless pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction for active infection: Mid-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The rate of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) due to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection continues to rise. CIED infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Temporary pacing in patients with active CIED infections after TLE can be challenging. Leadless pacing has emerged as an alternative approach in this patient population.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of a strategy using concomitant leadless pacemaker implantation and TLE in patients with active infections and ongoing pacing requirements.

METHODS

This study involved all leadless pacemaker implantation procedures performed during TLE between June 2018 and September 2022 in the setting of active infection. Demographic characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 86 patients with indications for ongoing pacing, 60 (70%) men with mean age 77.4 ± 10.5 years, who underwent TLE and concomitant leadless pacemaker implantation in the setting of active infection. There were no procedure-related complications. Sixty-five patients (76%) had evidence of bacteremia, 80% of whom were discharged to complete their antimicrobial treatment. During a median follow-up of 163 days (interquartile range 57-403 days), there were no recurrent infections. Of the 25 deaths (29%) during the study period, 22 (88%) were unrelated to the initial infection. Nine deceased patients (36%) had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Candida infections, 3 of whom had persistent infection despite TLE.

CONCLUSION

Leadless pacing is a safe and efficacious approach for the management of patients with pacing requirements that undergo CIED extraction in the setting of active infection.

Feasibility study of temporary permanent pacemaker in patients with conduction block after TAVR

Background

Limited data exist on the use of temporary permanent pacemaker (TPPM) to reduce unnecessary PPM in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Objectives

This study aims to determine the feasibility of TPPM in patients with HAVB after TAVR to provide prolonged pacing as a bridge.

Materials and methods

One hundred and eleven consecutive patients undergoing TAVR were screened from August 2021 to June 2022. Patients with HAVB eligible for PPM were included. TPPM were used in these patients instead of conventional temporary pacing or early PPM. Patients were followed up for 1 month. Holter and pacemaker interrogation were used to determine whether to implant PPM.

Results

Twenty one patients met the inclusion criteria for TPPM, of which 14 patients were third-degree AVB, 1 patient was second-degree AVB, 6 patients were first degree AVB with PR interval > 240 ms and LBBB with QRS duration > 150 ms. TPPM were placed on the 21 patients for 35 ± 7 days. Among 15 patients with HAVB, 26.7% of them (n = 4) recovered to sinus rhythm; 46.7% (n = 7) recovered to sinus rhythm with bundle branch block. The remains of 26.7% patients (n = 4) still had third-degree AVB and received PPM. For patients with first-degree AVB and LBBB, PR interval shortened to < 200 ms in all 6 patients and LBBB recovered in 2 patients. TPPM were successfully removed from all patients and no procedure-related adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

TPPM is reliable and safe in the small sample of patients with conduction block after TAVR to provide certain buffer time to distinguish whether a PPM is necessary. Future studies with larger sample are needed for further validation of the current results.

Externalized Reusable Permanent Pacemaker for Prolonged Temporary Cardiac Pacing in Critical Cardiac Care Units: An Observational Monocentric Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The use of temporary cardiac pacing is frequent in critical care units for severe bradycardia or electrical storm, but may be associated with frequent and potentially severe complications, especially when indwelling for several days. In some cases, transient indication or ongoing contraindication for a permanent pacemaker justifies prolonged temporary pacing. In that case, the implantation of an active-fixation lead connected to an externalized pacemaker represents a valuable option to increase safety and patient comfort. Yet, evidence remains scarce. We aimed to describe the population receiving prolonged temporary cardiac pacing (PTCP) and their outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all consecutive patients, admitted to our hospital from 2016 to 2021, who underwent PTCP. We collected in-hospital and six-month outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (median age of 73, 63% male) were included, and twenty-nine (63%) had prior heart disease. Indications for PTCP were found: seventeen (37%) potentially reversible high-grade conduction disorders, fourteen (30%) indications for permanent pacemaker but ongoing infection, seven (15%) cardiac implantable electronic device infections requiring extraction in pacing-dependent patients, seven (15%) severe vagal hyperreactivity in prolonged critical care hospitalizations, and one (2%) recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia requiring overdrive pacing. The median PTCP duration was nine (5-13) days. Ten (22%) patients exhibited at least one complication during hospitalization. Twenty-six (56.5%) patients required definite device implantation (twenty-five pacemakers and one cardioverter-defibrillator) and twenty (43.5%) did not (fifteen PTCP device removal for recovery and five deaths under PTCP). At six months, two (5%) deaths and two (5%) new infections of a definite implanted device occurred, all in patients with initial active infection.

CONCLUSION

The use of prolonged temporary cardiac pacing, with an active -fixation lead connected to an externalized pacemaker, is possible and reasonable; this would allow for the possible recovery or resolution of contraindication for definite device implantation.

Bridge pacemaker with an externalized active fixation lead for pacemaker-dependent patients with device infection

BACKGROUND

The risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) infection has been increasing in recent years. For pacemaker-dependent patients, a temporary pacemaker is needed before a new device can be implanted. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using a temporary pacing device with an externalized active fixation lead (bridge pacemaker) before a new device can be implanted in pacemaker-dependent patients with device infection.

METHODS

All patients who were admitted to our cardiac center with CIED infection and in need of bridge pacemaker implantation from April 2013 to August 2020 were prospectively enrolled in this observational study. The medical records of all patients were collected and evaluated. All procedure-related complications were also collected. Long-term outcomes, including reinfection and death within one year after hospital discharge, were collected through telephone follow-ups.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,050 patients underwent CIED extraction, of which 312 pacemaker-dependent patients underwent bridge pacemaker implantation. The mean age of the extracted leads was 44±38.7 months. The bridge pacemakers were in use for a mean duration of six days. Nine patients developed procedure-related complications including pericardial tamponade, pneumothorax, peripheral venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. Three patients developed complications that were related to their bridge pacemakers, including lead dislodgement, over-sensing and elevated pacing threshold. During the 1-year follow-up, it was found that four patients had developed CIED reinfection and three patients had died due to cardiac-related reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

A bridge pacemaker with an externalized active fixation lead is safe and efficacious for pacemaker-dependent patients with device infection. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A new fastening system for temporary pacing with active-fixation leads: effectiveness and safety

AIMS

Temporary cardiac pacing with active-fixation leads (TPAFL) using a reusable permanent pacemaker generator has been shown to be safer than lead systems without fixation. However, TPAFL requires the off-label use of pacemaker leads and generators. We designed a fastening system to ensure the safety and efficacy of the procedure: the KronoSafe System®. To demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the KronoSafe System® for temporary pacing in a series of patients receiving TPAFL.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective cohort of 20 patients undergoing TPAFL between August 2019 and June 2020 was recruited in a Spanish region. The temporary pacemaker was implanted through jugular access and secured with the KronoSafe System®. R-wave detection, lead impedance, and capture threshold were assessed every 48 h. Complications associated with the procedure or occurring during TPAFL were recorded. There were no complications associated with temporary pacing, and the therapy was effective in all cases. TPAFL was used for a mean of 7.6 days (maximum 25 days), and 84.56% of the time in a cardiology ward.

CONCLUSION

TPAFL secured using the KronoSafe system® provides safe and stable cardiac stimulation for patients requiring temporary cardiac pacing.

Rate of permanent cardiac implantable electronic device infections after active fixation temporary transvenous pacing: A nationwide Danish cohort study

Background

Temporary transvenous pacing (TP) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, but there is little data to document this in contemporary populations.

Objective

To investigate the impact of active fixation TP on rate of CIED infections in a nationwide cohort of Danish patients.

Methods

We identified all patients who underwent a first-time CIED implantation between 2009 and 2017. Patients were categorized according to TP status at implantation and followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was local or systemic CIED infection resulting in device system removal. The secondary outcomes were systemic CIED infections and hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE).

Results

We included a total of 40,601 CIED patients. A total of 2952 were treated with active fixation TP. The primary outcome was met in 246 patients. Risk of CIED infection at 1 year was 0.61% for patients not treated with TP and 0.65% for patients who were, HR of 1.28 (95% CI 0.80–2.05) and adjusted HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.51–1.42). More systemic CIED infections and IE hospitalizations occurred in TP patients; however, these differences did not persist after confounder adjustment. Cumulative mortality at 1 year was 16.8% in patients with TP vs 8.4% in patients without.

Conclusion

Active fixation TP was not associated with a higher rate of CIED infections. Patients treated with TP had higher mortality, more systemic CIED infections, and more IE hospitalizations within first year of implantation. Most was attributable to an accumulation of risk factors for infection among TP patients.

Outcomes of temporary pacing using active fixation leads and externalized permanent pacemakers in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection and pacemaker dependency

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections is increasing. Complete device and lead removal are recommended for all patients with definite CIED system infection. In patients with pacemaker dependency, temporary pacing before reimplantation is necessary. In this study, temporary pacing using active fixation leads (TPAFL) was evaluated.

METHODS

We reviewed data from consecutive patients implanted with TPAFL after transvenous lead extraction at our center between November 2014 and October 2020.

RESULTS

TPAFL were placed in 334 patients. The mean age was 64.5 ± 16.4 years and 76.3% were males. Two hundred and forty (72%) were treated due to local pocket infection and 94 (28%) systemic infection. The indication for temporary pacing was sick sinus syndrome in 135 (40.4%) patients and complete or high-grade atrioventricular (AV) block in 199 (59.6%) patients. The most common access site for lead implantation was the ipsilateral subclavian or axillary vein (78.9%). A new permanent CIED was reimplanted at 10.3 ± 9.2 days (median 10, range: 2-70) after implantation of the temporary pacing. There were five (1.5%) adverse events related to the temporary pacing during hospitalization. The median follow-up duration was 23.1 months (interquartile range [IQR], 7.2-43.4 months). Only one patient (0.3%) developed recurrent CIED infection.

CONCLUSION

TPAFL is safe and effective in pacemaker-dependent patients after infected CIED removal. The rate of temporary pacing-related complications, including lead dislodgment and reinfection of CIED is relatively low.

Management of patients explanted for implantable cardioverter defibrillator infections: Bridge therapy with external temporary ICD

AIMS AND METHODS

In case of cardiacimplantable electronicdevice (CIED)-related infections, it is mandatory to completely remove the device and administer prolonged antibiotic therapy. The management of patients explanted for an implantable defibrillator (ICD) infection is complex especially in patients needing anti-bradycardia pacing or tachyarrhythmia protection. We tested the efficacy and safety of a conventional ICD externally connected to a transvenous dual-coil lead as bridging therapy before the reimplant, comparing outcomes with a historical cohort of patients (N = 113) treated with temporary transvenous pacing. We enrolled 18 patients explanted for ICD infection and needing prolonged antibiotic therapy in three high-volume Italian centers. They received an external ICD stand-by for a mean of 16.5 (4-30) days before the reimplant.

RESULTS

No patient experienced malfunction of the system, with a significant reduction of this complication versus temporary transfemoral pacing (37%, p = .004). Post-procedural occurrence of other complications (infection, relevant local bleeding, ventricular tachycardia during insertion of the lead, cardiac perforation, and venous thromboembolism) was low and not different in the two groups. One patient experienced an electrical storm, effectively recognized by the external ICD and treated with anti-tachycardia pacings (ATPs) and shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

An approach with an external ICD seems to be a safe and viable option as bridging therapy in patients requiring ICD explant for CIED infection.

Evaluation of safety and feasibility of leadless pacemaker implantation following the removal of an infected pacemaker

BACKGROUND

Leadless pacemakers provide safe and effective pacing options for patients with device-related infections. This study was aimed at observing and evaluating the safety and feasibility of extracting an infected pacemaker device followed by the implantation of a leadless pacemaker in the same location for patients without systemic infection.

METHODS

Between December 2019 and September 2020, following a well-planned re-implantation strategy, pacemaker electrodes were removed from patients with device infection and leadless pacemakers were immediately implanted at our center. The patients were then followed up for up to 10 months to assess the safety and practicality of the procedure.

RESULTS

Pacemaker electrode removal and immediate leadless pacemaker implantation were successfully achieved in eight patients with pocket infection. After a minimum follow-up period of 1 month and a maximum follow-up of 10 months, the pacing parameters for the patients remained stable and there was no infection at the original capsular bag or in the leadless pacemaker.

CONCLUSION

Direct implantation of a leadless pacemaker is safe and feasible for patients with local infection of the pacing system after removal of the electrode as an alternative to a bridge period with a temporary pacemaker. This strategy may be a better option for pacing-dependent patients.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

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

As the number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) grows, they are likely to present with issues to diverse groups of physicians. Guideline-adherent management is associated with improved prognosis in patients with CIED infection or lead problems but is insufficiently implemented in practice. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) with the support of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery, performed a multinational educational needs assessment study in ESC member countries, directed at physicians who might be confronted with CIED patients with complications. A total of 336 physicians from 43 countries, reached through the ESC mailing list, participated. They included a mix of electrophysiologists, cardiologists general physicians and cardiac surgeons .One hundred and twenty-nine (38%) of the respondents performed lead extraction. The survey included eight clinical cases and a self-evaluation question of knowledge and skills to apply that knowledge. The survey looked at 14 areas of care across five stages of the patient journey. Of the non-extracting physicians over 50% felt they lacked the knowledge and skills to make the diagnosis and refer for lead extraction and over 75% felt they lacked knowledge and skills to manage aspects of extraction and post-extraction care. Barriers to correct referral were logistic and attitudinal. Extracting physicians reported significantly higher rates of adequate skills and knowledge across all five stages of the patient journey (P < 0.05). We identified major gaps in physicians' knowledge and skills across all stages of CIED care. These gaps should be addressed by targeted educational activities and streamlining referral pathways.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

[Organization and management of acute complete atrioventricular block: Results from a Multicenter National Survey]

BACKGROUND

Complete atrioventricular block (AVB3) may be an urgent potentially lifethreatening situation. Our objective was to describe the routine management of AVB 3, with emphasis on the organizational aspects.

METHODS

From September 2019 to November 2019, a prospective national survey including 28 questions was electronically sent to 100 physicians (Google Form).

RESULTS

The answers were collected from 93 physicians (response rate 93%). Permanent pacemaker implantation during weekends and nights (after 8PM) is possible for 49% of the operators (<5 times a year), for 15% (>5 times a year), impossible for 36% of the operators. For AVB3 nonresponsive to isoproterenol occurring during the night, a temporary pacing lead (TPL) is implanted by: the on-site medical staff on-duty (27%), the on-call interventional cardiologist (21%), the on-call electrophysiologist (19%), a permanent pacemaker is implanted by the electrophysiologist (12%), the strategy is not standardized (15%). An externalized active fixation lead (AFL) for AVB3 has already been implanted by 50% of the operators. 80 (86%) have already observed a dislocation of the TPL, a cardiac perforation already occurred in 57 (61%), a groin hematoma in 35 (38%), and this technique was proscribed for 4% of the operators.

CONCLUSION

Our survey shows important disparities in terms of management of AVB3 among the different centers. An externalized AFL with a reusable generator was used by half of the centers.

The indications and safety of prolonged temporary pacing using active-fixation leads and externalized pulse generator

BACKGROUND

Temporary cardiac pacing, conventionally achieved using a passive transvenous pacing wire, can be life-saving for unstable arrhythmias. However, they run the risk of complications, the longer they remain in-situ. Externalized prolonged temporary pacing (EPTP), using active-fixation lead and an externalized pulse generator; may be an alternative for transient pacing indications, concurrent illness or sepsis that precludes permanent pacing.

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients (mean age 69 ± 14 years; 82% male) underwent EPTP between November 2011 and April 2019. EPTP was performed in a sterile facility, under fluoroscopy, using active-fixation leads anchored to the right ventricle septum. Externalized lead was connected to a re-sterilized pulse generator and secured to anterior chest wall with transparent dressings. EPTP indications and patient outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Pacing indications were high-grade atrio-ventricular (AV) block (73.2%), sinus arrest (14.9%), overdrive suppression of VT (5.9%) and pause-dependent VT (4.5%). Reasons for ETPT rather than permanent pacing included: sepsis (38.8%), CIED-related infection (8.9%), transient pacing indication (25%), to allow further investigations prior to decision on CIED type (22%), and over-drive arrhythmia suppression (6%). Sixty three percent patients were severely ill in an ICU. Mean duration of pacing was 16 ± 12 days. Sixty seven percent patients subsequently received a CIED and had no evidence of device-related infection at 1-year post-implant. There were three non-fatal complications during EPTP while no deaths were attributed to EPTP.

CONCLUSION

EPTP is a safe and useful method of prolonged temporary pacing for patients who require chronotropic support, but in whom immediate permanent pacemaker implantation is contraindicated.

Comparison of Leadless Pacing and Temporary Externalized Pacing Following Cardiac Implanted Device Extraction

Pacemaker-dependent (PD) patients undergoing implantable cardiac electronic device extraction often must be subjected to temporary pacing interventions. We sought to determine the safety and utility of a leadless pacing system (Micra™; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) in patients undergoing system extraction as compared with externalized temporary transvenous right ventricular lead (temp-perm) placement. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients receiving either permanent Micra™ or temp-perm systems following system extraction from October 2013 to September 2017 at Vanderbilt University Hospital. The Micra™ and temp-perm cohorts included nine and 27 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, respectively. System infection was the most common indication for extraction (67% Micra™, 84% temp-perm), but no patients had active bacteremia at the time of permanent system reimplantation. There was no difference in system type (p = 0.09) or mean lead dwell time extracted (109 versus 81 months; p = 0.93). Procedure times were comparable between the two groups (180 versus 194 minutes; p = 0.74). Patients receiving Micra™ systems had shorter hospital stays after extraction (two versus eight days; p < 0.005), with no difference in major complications (11% versus 15%; p = 0.78) or 30-day (11% versus 7%; p = 0.77) or 90-day (11% versus 11%; p = 0.45) mortality. No reinfections were observed in either group at 90 days. Implantation of the Micra™ pacing system in select PD patients after system extraction is feasible and appears to reduce the hospital length of stay as compared with the use of temp-perm systems.

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with temporary external pacemaker: a case report

Background 

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly becoming the imaging modality of choice for many clinical disorders due to superior image quality and absence of radiation. However, access to MRI remains limited for most patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices due to potential safety concerns. In line with guidelines, there is no absolute contraindication to perform MRI, but warrants careful risk-benefit assessment.

Case summary 

A 59-year-old man was admitted with a 5-day history of central chest pain and few week’s history of general malaise, dry cough, and breathlessness. Electrocardiogram confirmed complete atrioventricular block (CAVB). A slight increase in cardiac enzyme was noted. Coronary angiogram revealed atheromatous changes, but no obstructive coronary lesion. A temporary transvenous pacemaker was inserted. Transthoracic echocardiogram confirmed a dilated left ventricle with severely reduced left ventricular function. To facilitate diagnosis (hence prognosis), management and mobilization, investigation with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was warranted but contraindicated by the temporary transvenous pacemaker. An active fixation pacemaker lead was therefore placed in the right ventricle via percutaneous puncture of the right subclavian vein and connected to a pulse generator, both secured to the skin with sutures and adhesive medical dressing. Appropriate device programming and close patient monitoring ensured that CMR could be performed without any adverse effects. A diagnosis of acute myocarditis was confirmed. Regular device interrogation during an extended 3-week period with temporary pacing ruled out any device failure. As there was no resolution of CAVB, the patient received a dual-chamber pacemaker.

Discussion 

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance was feasible and safely performed on a patient with a temporary permanent external pacemaker system using a standard screw-in pacing lead and a regular pulse generator fixed to the skin. Although more studies are needed for generalizability, CMR may be used in highly selected patients with a temporary pacemaker.

Comparação entre 2 Métodos de Fixação de Marcapasso Provisório Transvenoso: FIX-IT Trial

Introdução: A necessidade de marcapasso provisório (MPP) transita por diversos cenários. Alguns pacientes necessitam do dispositivo para completar um tratamento de infecção, recuperar o ritmo após infarto do miocárdio ou enquanto aguardam liberação do dispositivo defi nitivo pela operadora de saúde. Independentemente da técnica de passagem do MPP, a boa fi xação do eletrodo é fundamental, evitando-se deslocamentos e necessidade de reposicionamento, entre outras complicações. Objetivo: Comparar duas formas de fi xação de MPP, uma sob fi xação direta na pele e outra mantendo-seo introdutor venoso conectado à proteção plástica por todo cabo-eletrodo do marcapasso. Métodos: Randomizaram-se 40 pacientes, 20 em cada grupo. Registraram-se dados referentes ao tempo do procedimento, posição do cabo-eletrodo, limiares de comando, sensibilidade e complicações. Consideraram-se como desfecho primário a necessidade de reposicionamento ou troca do MPP transvenoso e secundário qualquer complicação sem a necessidade de reposicioná-lo. Resultados: Não houve diferenças signifi cativas na duração total do procedimento entre os grupos na posição inicial do eletrodo e na via de acesso utilizada. O grupo com a proteção plástica apresentou desfecho primário maior (60%) em relação ao grupo de fi xação direta (20%; p = 0,0098). Não houve diferenças em relação ao desfecho secundário (p = 1,0). O grupo com proteção plástica também apresentou mais complicações totais em relação ao outro grupo (p = 0,0262). Conclusão: A fi xação direta do cabo-eletrodo do marcapasso se mostrou mais segura em relação à fi xação com proteção plástica, reduzindo complicações como deslocamentos do cabo-eletrodo que necessitem de reposicionamento ou troca desse, sem aumento no tempo do procedimento.

Comparison of Two Transvenous Temporary Pacemaker Fixation Methods: FIX-IT Trial

Introduction: the necessity for a temporary pacemaker (TP) goes through several scenarios. Some patients require the device to complete an infection treatment, regain the pace after myocardial infarction, or while awaiting the release of the definitive device by the health care provider. Regardless of the TP passage technique, good electrode fixation is essential, avoiding dislocation and the necessity for repositioning, among other complications. Objective: to compare two forms of TP fixation, one under direct fixation to the skin and the other keeping the venous introducer connected to the plastic protection through the pacemaker electrode lead. Methods: Forty patients were randomized, 20 in each group. Data regarding the procedure time, electrode lead position, command thresholds, sensitivity, and complications were recorded. The primary outcome considered was the necessity for repositioning or exchange of transvenous TP and secondary any complication without the necessity to reposition it. Results: There were no significant differences in the total duration of the procedure between the groups in the initial position of the electrode and the access route used. The group with plastic protection had a higher primary outcome (60%) than the direct fixation group (20%; p = 0.0098). There were no differences regarding the secondary outcome (p = 1.0). The group with plastic protection also had more total complications compared to the other group (p = 0.0262). Conclusion: Direct fixation of the pacemaker electrode lead was safer concerning the fixation with plastic protection, reducing complications such as electrode dislocation requiring repositioning or replacement without increasing the procedure time.

A Review of Temporary Permanent Pacemakers and a Comparison with Conventional Temporary Pacemakers

Temporary cardiac pacing is commonly used in patients with life-threatening bradycardia and serves as a bridge to implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM). For years, passive fixation leads have been used for this purpose, offering the advantage of that they can be placed at bedside. The downside, however, is that patients must remain on telemetry and bed rest until lead removal due to the risk of displacement and failure to capture. Even then, the latter cannot always be prevented. Temporary cardiac pacing with passive fixation leads has also been related to a higher incidence of infection and venous thrombosis, delayed recovery, and increased length of stay. Thus, over the last couple of decades, pacemaker leads with an active fixation mechanism have become increasingly used. This is known as a temporary PPM (TPPM) approach, which carries a very low risk of lead dislodgement and allows patients to ambulate, among other advantages. Here, we performed a review of the literature on the use of TPPMs and their advantages over temporary pacemakers with passive fixation leads and in order to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of active and passive fixation leads in temporary cardiac pacing. Most articles found were case reports and case series, with few prospective studies. We excluded documents such as editorials and image case reports that provided little to no useful information for the final analysis. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and other databases and articles written in English and Spanish were considered. Articles were screened up to January 2017. The search keywords used were "temporary permanent pacemaker," "external permanent pacemaker," "active fixation lead," "explantable pacemaker," "hybrid pacing," "temporary permanent generator," "prolonged temporary transvenous pacing," and "semipermanent pacemaker." A total of 24 studies with 770 patients were ultimately included in our review. The age group was primarily above the sixth decade of life, with the exception of one that included pediatric patients. Indications for pacing included device infection, sick sinus syndrome, atrioventricular block, ventricular tachycardia, and bradyarrhythmias associated with systemic illness. The duration of TPPM usage varied from a few days up to 336 days. A total of 18 (2.3%) TPPM-related infections were reported, in which the duration of TPPM use was less than 30 days in at least 15 patients. Loss of capture was documented in only eight patients (1.0%). Complication rates varied from 0% to 30%, with the highest event rates being present in studies that used femoral venous access. In conclusion, although no high-quality studies were identified in our literature search, we found the data retrieved suggest the association of overall favorable outcomes with the use of TPPMs. Device placement and removal typically involve a simple procedure, although fluoroscopy, usually applied in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, is necessary for implantation, which could represent an additional risk in a patient who is already hemodynamically unstable. When possible, a screw-in-lead pacemaker should be used for temporary pacing.

Alcohol septal ablation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Alcohol septal ablation (ASA) has become an alternative to surgical myectomy in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy since it was first introduced in 1994 by Sigwart. The procedure alleviates symptoms by producing a limited infarction of the upper interventricular septum, resulting in a decrease in left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient. The technique has been improved over time and the results are comparable with those of myectomy. Initial concerns about long-term outcomes have been largely resolved. In this review, we discuss indications, technical aspects, clinical results and patient selection to ASA.

Reimplantation and Repeat Infection After Cardiac-Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Experience From the MEDIC (Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort) Database

BACKGROUND

Infection is a serious complication of cardiovascular-implantable electronic device implantation and necessitates removal of all hardware for optimal treatment. Strategies for reimplanting hardware after infection vary widely and have not previously been analyzed using a large, multicenter study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The MEDIC (Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort) prospectively enrolled subjects with cardiovascular-implantable electronic device infections at multiple institutions in the United States and abroad between 2009 and 2012. Reimplantation strategies were evaluated overall, and every patient who relapsed within 6 months was individually examined for clinical information that could help explain the negative outcome. Overall, 434 patients with cardiovascular-implantable electronic device infections were prospectively enrolled at participating centers. During the initial course of therapy, complete device removal was done in 381 patients (87.8%), and 220 of them (57.7%) were ultimately reimplanted with new devices. Overall, the median time between removal and reimplantation was 10 days, with an interquartile range of 6 to 19 days. Eleven of the 434 patients had another infection within 6 months, but only 4 of them were managed with cardiovascular-implantable electronic device removal and reimplantation during the initial infection. Thus, the repeat infection rate was low (1.8%) in those who were reimplanted. Patients who retained original hardware had a 11.3% repeat infection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study findings confirm that a broad range of reimplant strategies are used in clinical practice. They suggest that it is safe to reimplant cardiac devices after extraction of previously infected hardware and that the risk of a second infection is low, regardless of reimplant timing.

Lead extractions: indications, procedural aspects, and outcomes

As a result of more cardiac implantable electronic devices being placed, a trend toward increasing device infections, and concerns regarding lead malfunction, there is an increased need for lead extraction skills and comprehensive lead management programs. This review discusses the current indications for lead extractions as well as the training requirements and tools and technology needed to create the foundation for a successful lead management program.

[Fatal surgical extraction of cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator leads in a context of endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. A case report and review of literature]

A 82-year-old man equipped with a cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator for dilated cardiomyopathy with normal coronary arteries, in complete atrioventricular block, develops six months after a change of the generator-pocket a severe endocarditis due to a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis with a large lead vegetation. After 4 days of adapted antimicrobial therapy, a surgical device removal is realised with unfortunately a fatal end during extraction. This observation points out the severity of cardiovascular device infections in old and weak population, as well as the difficulty of treatment choices because of both infectious and rhythmic constraints. The lead extraction is a strong recommendation but the modality and timing of extraction are not consensual, especially in cardioverter defibrillator-dependent patients. Surgical removal remains an alternative to percutaneous lead extraction but with a higher operative risk.

Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection

Despite improved preventive measures, infection associated with the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) to treat often life-threatening conditions is rising at an average annual rate of almost 5 %. This rise is being driven by the increasing complexity of CIED technology and by the advancing age and co-morbidities of the patients. Although CIED infection is usually suspected based on local signs at the generator pocket site, diagnosis can be challenging in patients presenting no local manifestations or symptoms. Diagnostic methods include microbiological testing and echocardiography, and may be completed by positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan in selected cases. CIED infection requires a multidisciplinary approach in view of hardware extraction, targeted antibiotic therapy and reimplantation on an as-needed basis. Antibiotic prophylaxis targeting staphylococcal flora is recommended but the relation of these infections to medical care exposes patients to multi-resistant bacteria. New preventive measures utilising an antibacterial sleeve look promising. Treatment can be started on an empirical basis using an antistaphylococcal agent but must be continued using targeted antibiotic therapy. Crucial questions remain as to the best prevention strategy, optimal duration and timing of antibiotic therapy, and the most effective reimplantation technique.