Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.

Safety and success of transvenous lead extraction using excimer laser sheaths: a meta-analysis of over 1700 patients

AIMS

While numerous studies have demonstrated favourable safety and efficacy of the excimer laser sheath for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in smaller cohorts, comprehensive large-scale investigations with contemporary data remain scarce. This study aims to evaluate the safety and performance of laser-assisted TLE through a meta-analysis of contemporary data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that assessed the safety and performance of the spectranetics laser sheath (SLS) II and GlideLight Excimer laser sheaths in TLE procedures between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2021. Safety outcomes included procedure-related death and major/minor complications. Performance outcomes included procedural and clinical success rates. A random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted average of the evaluated outcomes. In total, 17 articles were identified and evaluated, including 1729 patients with 2887 leads. Each patient, on average, had 2.3 ± 0.3 leads with a dwell time of 7.9 ± 3.0 years. The TLE procedural successes rate was 96.8% [1440/1505; 95% CI: (94.9-98.2%)] per patient and 96.3% [1447/1501; 95% CI: (94.8-97.4%)] per lead, and the clinical success rate per patient was 98.3% [989/1010, 95% CI: (97.4-99.0%)]. The procedure-related death rate was 0.08% [7/1729, 95% CI: (0.00%, 0.34%)], with major and minor complication rates of 1.9% [41/1729; 95% CI: (1.2-2.8%)] and 1.9% [58/1729; 95% CI: (0.8-3.6%)], respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that excimer laser sheath-assisted TLE has high success and low procedural mortality rates. It provides clinicians with a reliable and valuable resource for extracting indwelling cardiac leads which require advanced extraction techniques.

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.

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.

A head-to-head comparison of laser vs. powered mechanical sheaths as first choice and second line extraction tools

AIMS

During transvenous lead extraction (TLE) longer dwelling time often requires the use of powered sheaths. This study aimed to compare outcomes with the laser and powered mechanical tools.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Single-centre data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Efficacy and safety of the primary extraction tool were compared. Procedures requiring crossover between powered sheaths were also analysed. Moreover, we examined the efficacy of each level of the stepwise approach. Out of 166 patients, 142 (age 65.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent TLE requiring advanced techniques with 245 leads (dwelling time 9.4 ± 6.3 years). Laser sheaths were used in 64.9%, powered mechanical sheaths in 35.1% of the procedures as primary extraction tools. Procedural success rate was 85.5% with laser and 82.5% with mechanical sheaths (P = 0.552). Minor and major complications were observed in similar rate. Procedural mortality occurred only in the laser group in the case of three patients. Crossover was needed in 19.5% after laser and in 12.8% after mechanical extractions (P = 0.187). Among crossover procedures, only clinical success favoured the secondary mechanical arm (87.1 vs. 54.5%, aOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.79, P = 0.030). After step-by-step efficacy analysis, procedural success was 64.9% with the first-line extraction tool, 75.1% after crossover, 84.5% with bailout femoral snare, and 91.8% by non-emergency surgery.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of laser and mechanical sheaths were similar, however in the subgroup of crossover procedures mechanical tools had better performance regarding clinical success. Device diversity seems to help improving outcomes, especially in the most complicated cases.

Transvenous lead extraction outcomes using a novel hand-powered bidirectional rotational sheath as a first-line extraction tool in a low-volume centre

OBJECTIVES

Extraction of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in low-volume medical centres with limited clinical experience and an evolving lead extraction programme may be challenging. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stepwise transvenous lead extraction (TLE) using a novel type of hand-powered rotational sheath as a first-line tool for extraction of chronically implanted devices in a single, low-volume centre.

METHODS

Sixty-seven consecutive patients undergoing a TLE procedure using the novel Evolution® RL rotational sheath as the first-line extraction tool between 2015 and 2019 at our institution were enrolled in the study. Their short-term and 30-day outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine devices and 131 leads were explanted. Procedural and clinical success rates were 92.4% and 98.5%, respectively. Two procedures were classified as failures due to lead remnants >4 cm remaining in patients' vascular systems. One major (1.5%) and 3 minor (4.4%) adverse events and no deaths were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE procedures, performed in a stepwise manner, using the Evolution RL sheath as a first-line extraction device and conducted by an experienced, surgically well-trained operator, offer excellent results with clinical and procedural success rates comparable to those, achieved in dedicated, high-volume institutions. Opting for optimal lead extraction approach in low-volume centres or institutions with evolving TLE programmes, a stepwise extraction strategy using the Evolution RL sheath by skilled operator may provide the optimal scheme with an excellent ratio between clinical and/or procedural success and complications.

Reimplantation and long-term mortality after transvenous lead extraction in a high-risk, single-center cohort

PURPOSE

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly over the last decades. With the development of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), procedural success rates also improved; however, data regarding long-term outcomes are still limited. The aim of our study was to analyze the outcomes after TLE, including reimplantation data, all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE in our institution between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Periprocedural, 30-day, long-term, and cause-specific mortalities were calculated. We examined the original and the revised CIED indications and survival rate of patients with or without reimplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients (age 66 ± 14 years) with 308 leads (dwelling time 7.8 ± 6.3 years) underwent TLE due to pocket infection (n = 105, 70%), endocarditis (n = 35, 23%), or non-infectious indications (n = 10, 7%). All-cause mortality data were available for all patients, detailed reimplantation data in 98 cases. Procedural death rate was 2% (n = 3), 30-day mortality rate 2.6% (n = 4). During the 3.5 ± 2.4 years of follow-up, 44 patients died. Arrhythmia, as the direct cause of death, was absent. Cardiovascular cause was responsible for mortality in 25%. There was no significant survival difference between groups with or without reimplantation (p = 0.136).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high number of pocket and systemic infection and long dwelling times in our cohort, the short- and long-term mortality after TLE proved to be favorable. Moreover, survival without a new device was not worse compared to patients who underwent a reimplantation procedure. Our study underlines the importance of individual reassessment of the original CIED indication, to avoid unnecessary reimplantation.

Management of cardiac implantable electronic device infection using a complete interdisciplinary approach

Technological advances and increasing operator experience have improved the success rate of transvenous lead extraction (TLE). However, in some cases-especially with longer lead dwelling time-TLE can be highly complicated. In this case report, the authors present an unusual case of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) pocket infection diagnosed by ¹⁸F‑fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸F‑FDG-PET/CT). Complete lead extraction required a combined transvenous and surgical approach. Contralateral reimplantation failed due to occlusion of the right brachiocephalic vein. Therefore, a subcutaneous ICD was implanted. This case highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to the treatment of cardiac implantable electronic device infection.