Transvenous Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Hemodialysis Catheters: Recommendations to Curtail a Potentially Lethal Combination

Risk of infections related to endovascular catheters and cardiac implantable devices in hemodialysis patients

Patients requiring dialysis are extremely vulnerable to infectious diseases. The high burden of comorbidities and weakened immune system due to uremia and previous immunosuppressive therapy expose the patient on dialysis to more infectious events than the general population. The infectious risk is further increased by the presence of endovascular catheters and implantable cardiologic devices. The former is generally placed as urgent vascular access for dialysis and in subjects requiring hemodialysis treatments without autogenous arteriovenous fistula. The high frequency of cardiovascular events also increases the likelihood of implanting indwelling implantable cardiac devices (CIED) such as pacemakers (PMs) and defibrillators (ICDs). The simultaneous presence of CVC and CIED yields an increased risk of developing severe prosthetic device-associated bloodstream infections often progressing to septicemia. Although, antibiotic therapy is the mainstay of prosthetic device-related infections, antibiotic resistance of biofilm-residing bacteria reduces the choice of infection eradication. In these cases, the resolution of the infection process relies on the removal of the prosthetic device. Compared to CVC removal, the extraction of leads is a more complex procedure and poses an increased risk of vessel tearing. As a result, the prevention of prosthetic device-related infection is of utmost importance in hemodialysis (HD) patients and relies principally on avoiding CVC as vascular access for HD and placement of a new class of wireless implantable medical devices. When the combination of CVC and CIED is inevitable, prevention of infection, mainly due translocation of skin bacteria, should be a mandatory priority for healthcare workers.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator and Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Overt Chronic Kidney Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Heart failure and chronic kidney disease are common and clinically important conditions that regularly coexist. Electrophysiologic changes of advanced heart failure often result in abnormal conduction, causing dyssynchronous contraction, and development of ventricular arrhythmias, which can lead to sudden cardiac arrest. In the last 2 decades, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices have been developed to address these complications. However, when the coexisting chronic kidney disease is advanced, the associated pathophysiologic cardiovascular changes can alter the efficacy and safety of those interventions and complicate the management. This review explores the impact of comorbid advanced heart failure and advanced chronic kidney disease on the efficacy and safety of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy, the currently available evidence, and potential future directions.

Subcutaneous versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease Requiring Dialysis: Extended Long-Term Retrospective Multicenter Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis are at a very high risk of infection from cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation as well as mortality. In the present study, we compared the long-term complications and outcomes between subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) recipients.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we analyzed a total of 43 patients with ESRD requiring dialysis who received either a prophylactic S-ICD (26 patients) or a single right ventricular lead TV-ICD (17 patients) at seven experienced centers in Germany. Follow-up was performed bi-annually, at the end of which the data concerning comorbidities and, if applicable, reason for death were checked and confirmed with patients' general practitioner, nephrologist and cardiologist.

RESULTS

The median follow up duration was 95.6 months (range 42.8-126.3 months). Baseline characteristics were without noteworthy significant differences between groups. During follow-up (FU), there were significantly more device-associated infections (HR 8.72, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18 to 12.85, p < 0.05) and device-associated hospitalizations (HR 10.20, 95% CI 1.22 to 84.61, p < 0.001), as well as a higher cardiovascular mortality (HR 9.17, 95% CI 1.12 to 8.33, p < 0.05), in the TV-ICD group. The number of patients requiring hospitalization for any reason was significantly higher in the TV-ICD group (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.12 to 6.41, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in overall mortality (HR 1.92, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.15, p = 0.274).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that, in this extended follow-up in seriously compromised renal patients on dialysis, the S-ICD patients have statistically fewer device infections and hospitalizations as well as lower cardiac mortality compared with the TV-ICD cohort.

Comparison of infection and complication rates associated with transvenous vs. subcutaneous defibrillators in patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease: a multicenter long-term retrospective follow-up

Background

Patients with progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at higher risk of infections and complications from cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). In patients with a primary or secondary prophylactic indication, implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) can prevent sudden cardiac deaths (SCD). We retrospectively compared transvenous-ICD (TV-ICD) and intermuscularly implanted subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) associated infections and complication rates together with hospitalizations in recipients with stage 4 kidney disease.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 70 patients from six German centers with stage 4 CKD who received either a prophylactic TV-ICD with a single right ventricular lead, 49 patients, or a S-ICD, 21 patients. Follow-Ups (FU) were performed bi-annually.

Results

The TV-ICD patients were significantly older. This group had more patients with a history of atrial arrhythmias and more were prescribed anti-arrhythmic medication compared with the S-ICD group. There were no significant differences for other baseline characteristics. The median and interquartile range of FU durations were 55.2 (57.6-69.3) months. During FU, patients with a TV-ICD system experienced significantly more device associated infections (n = 8, 16.3% vs. n = 0; p < 0.05), device-associated complications (n = 13, 26.5% vs. n = 1, 4.8%; p < 0.05) and device associated hospitalizations (n = 10, 20.4% vs. n = 1, 4.8%; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In this long-term FU of patients with stage 4 CKD and an indication for a prophylactic ICD, the S-ICD was associated with significantly fewer device associated infections, complications and hospitalizations compared with TV-ICDs.

Subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator implanted intermuscularly in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis: 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) when implanted intermuscularly in patients with end-stage renal disease and hemodialysis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of 21 consecutive patients implanted with S-ICDs at three experienced centers in Germany with comorbid renal insufficiency requiring hemodialysis, as well as being at risk of sudden cardiac death. The S-ICD was placed intermuscularly in all patients. Follow-ups (FUs) were performed every 6 months.

RESULTS

The mean ± standard deviation FU duration was 60.0 ± 11.4 months, with a range of 39 to 78 months. There were no deaths due to arrhythmia, or device-associated infections and complications. Four patients (19.1%) died during FU due to respiratory insufficiency during dialysis, systolic heart failure, septic infection of the urogenital tract, and colorectal cancer, respectively. There were six non-device-related hospitalizations with a duration of 12.7 ± 5.1 days and a hospitalization rate of 4.1 per 100 patient years.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term FU of this small population of seriously compromised hemodialysis patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, the intermuscularly implanted S-ICD system was safe and effective. No arrhythmic complications, device-associated infections, or complications compromised survival. These data are encouraging and support testing in a larger group of similarly compromised patients.

Do Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Dialysis?

Chronic kidney disease patients appear to be predisposed to heart rhythm disorders, including atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular arrhythmias, and supraventricular tachycardias, which increase the risk of sudden cardiac death. The pathophysiological factors underlying arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in patients with end-stage renal disease are unique and include timing and frequency of dialysis and dialysate composition, vulnerable myocardium, and acute proarrhythmic factors triggering asystole. The high incidence of sudden cardiac deaths suggests that this population could benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. The introduction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators significantly decreased the rate of all-cause mortality; however, the benefits of this therapy among patients with chronic kidney disease remain controversial since the studies provide conflicting results. Electrolyte imbalances in haemodialysis patients may result in ineffective shock therapy or the appearance of non-shockable underlying arrhythmic sudden cardiac death. Moreover, the implantation of such devices is associated with a risk of infections and central venous stenosis. Therefore, in the population of patients with heart failure and severe renal impairment, periprocedural risk and life expectancy must be considered when deciding on potential device implantation. Harmonised management of rhythm disorders and renal disease can potentially minimise risks and improve patients' outcomes and prognosis.

How does a CIED presence influence chances and safety of haemodialysis access? Conclusions from over 3000 thoracic venografies

Patients requiring temporal or permanent catheter or arterio-venous fistula (AVF) for haemodialysis may be in challenging situation, if they are cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) carriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors analysed preoperative venogrphies of 3100 patients referred for transvenous lead extraction for a possible chance of safe haemodialysis catheter (HC) implantation or proper AVF function.

RESULTS

A chance of safe catheter implantation parallel to existing leads reaches 68.8% ipsilaterally to CIED. Contraindications for implantation have been found in less than 2% of cases contralaterally. Ipsilaterally proper AVF function chance has been found in 50.3% of the cases and almost 98% contralaterally. A bilateral chest electrodes location require the special attention. Abandoned lead, lead burden, bilateral leads, additional lead implantation or abandonment, and implant duration may have a significant influence on HC insertion or proper function of arteriovenous fistula.

CONCLUSION

(1) Obstruction of prominent thoracic veins is a frequent finding in CIED carriers and may impede or disable implantation haemodialysis accesses. (2) Implantation of temporary or permanent HC may be questionable ipsilaterally to the CIED in 31.2% and contralaterally in 2.0% of patients. Proper function of AVF is uncertain in 49.7% ipsilaterally and 2.1% contralaterally to CIED. (3) Pacing history and leads dwell time influence chances of success haemodialysis access even on the free-from CIED chest side. (4) Proper venous flow evaluation seems to be valuable in CIED carriers before an attempt of haemodialysis access formation, even contralaterally.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices and native arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: novel perspectives

The benefits from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation in hemodialysis (HD) patients are still far to be thoroughly defined, especially on primary prevention. In addition, CIED placement is not a risk-free procedure, because it could be followed by a not negligible burden of complications that could compromise the health and the vascular access of HD patients. In fact, the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) dysfunction following CIED implantation is usually due to a hemodynamically significant alteration of blood flow. This condition could lead to a potential decrease of dialysis efficacy and a raised risk of thrombosis of both the central vein and the efferent vein of the AVF.The pathological pathway that leads to AVF dysfunction after CIED implantation may involve the irritating actions of the CIED and their leads to the vascular wall in HD patients that are more prone to show previous vascular diseases.The aim of this review is to focus the physiopathology of the CIED-induced AVF dysfunction, the current treatment strategies and the novel perspectives that could be taken into consideration and offered to the HD population to preserve both their AVF and their quality of life.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients with ESRD: Complications, Management, and Literature Review

Background:

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death among dialysis pa-tients, accounting for about 40% of all their mortalities. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is culpable for 37.5% of all deaths among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be considered in dialysis patients for the primary or secondary preven-tion of SCD. Recent studies on the implementation of ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy do not exclude patients with ESRD; however, individualized decisions should be made in this group of pa-tients. A thorough evaluation of the benefits of ICD implementation in patients with ESRD requires several large-scale mortality studies to compare and follow up patients with ESRD with and without ICDs. In the present study, we sought to determine and clarify the complications associated with ICD implementation and management thereof in patients suffering from ESRD.

Methods:

To assess the complications allied to the implementation of ICDs and their management in patients with ESRD, we reviewed available related articles in the literature.

Results and Conclusions:

ICD implementation in dialysis patients has several complications, which has limited its usage. Based on our literature review, the complications of ICD implementation can be categorized as follows: (1) Related to implantation procedures, hematoma, and pneumothorax; (2) Re-lated to the device/lead such as lead fracture and lead dislodgment; (3) Infection; and (4) Central vein thrombosis. Hence, the management of the complications of ICDs in this specific group of patients is of vital importance.

Central Venous Stenosis after Hemodialysis: Case Reports and Relationships to Catheters and Cardiac Implantable Devices

The appropriate vascular access for hemodialysis in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is undefined. We describe two cases of end-stage renal disease patients with CIED and tunneled central venous catheter (CVC) who developed venous cava stenosis: (1) a 70-year-old man with sinus node disease and pacemaker in 2013, CVC, and a Brescia-Cimino forearm fistula in 2015; (2) a 75-year-old woman with previous ventricular arrhythmia with implanted defibrillator in 2014 and CVC in 2016. In either case, after about 1 year from CVC insertion, patients developed superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome due to stenosis diagnosed by axial computerized tomography. In case 1, the patient was not treated by angioplasty of SVC and removed CVC with partial resolving of symptoms. In case 2, a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with placement of a new CVC was required. To analyze these reports in the context of available literature, we systematically reviewed studies that have analyzed the presence of central venous stenosis associated with the simultaneous presence of CIED and CVC. Five studies were found; two indicated an increased incidence of central venous stenosis, while three did not find any association. While more studies are definitely needed, we suggest that these patients may benefit from epicardial cardiac devices and the insertion of devices directly into the ventriculus. If the new devices are unavailable or contraindicated, peritoneal dialysis or intensive conservative treatment in older patients may be proposed as alternative options.

Impact of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices in chronic hemodialysis patients: a single-center, observational comparative study

Background

We investigated the impact of a transvenous cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement on outcomes and arteriovenous vascular access (VA) patency among chronic hemodialysis patients.

Methods

This is a single-center, observational comparative study between chronic hemodialysis patients with ipsilateral and contralateral CIED and VA. Forty-two consecutive patients who underwent both CIED placement and upper-extremity VA for hemodialysis, regardless of the sequence and time interval between these 2 procedures, were identified between January 2001 and December 2017. Patients with ipsilateral (n = 22, 52%, the ipsilateral group) and contralateral (n = 20, 48%, the contralateral group) CIED and VA were compared retrospectively; the primary outcome was any-cause mortality and cardiac mortality or the composite of any systemic complications, defined as central venous stenosis or occlusion, any device infections or tricuspid regurgitation; the secondary outcome was CIED or VA malfunction.

Results

During the median follow-up period of 101 months, primary outcome incidence was significantly higher in the ipsilateral group than the contralateral group (73% vs 40%, P = 0.03), although the incidences of any-cause mortality (P = 0.28) and cardiac mortality (P > 0.99) were similar between the groups. Secondary outcome incidence did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (55% vs 30%, P = 0.36). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed similar primary and secondary VA patency rates in both groups. On subgroup analysis, patients with upper arm VA had similar primary and secondary patency to those with forearm VA.

Conclusions

Despite some notable limitations of the study, the retrospective study design and small sample size, we found that the any-cause mortality incidence and VA patency did not differ between the 2 groups, but primary outcome incidence was significantly higher among patients with ipsilateral CIED and VA.

Venous Hemodialysis Catheters and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Avoiding a High-Risk Combination

End-stage renal disease is frequently accompanied by cardiac comorbidity that warrants treatment with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). In the United States, chronic hemodialysis (HD) population, cardiac implantable devices are present in up to 10.5% of patients; a venous HD catheter is utilized for blood access in 18% of prevalent patients. The concomitant presence of a venous HD catheter and cardiovascular implantable device creates a high-risk circumstance, with potential for causing symptomatic central venous stenosis, and for developing complicated endovascular infection. This dangerous combination may be avoided for many patients by utilizing nondialysis methods for management of advanced chronic kidney disease, initiating dialysis without venous catheter access, or managing cardiac rhythm disorders without use of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices. In those situations where the combination of a venous HD catheter and cardiac implantable device is unavoidable, there are strategies to minimize duration of venous catheter access, and to reduce risks for infectious complications. It is essential for nephrologists and cardiologists to understand the indications, alternatives, and risks involved with venous HD access and cardiac implantable devices. Coordinated management of renal disease and cardiac rhythm disorders has potential to minimize risks, improve outcomes, and substantially reduce the cost of care.

Clinical presentation and outcomes of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Infection is a serious complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Kidney failure is as an independent risk factor for CIED infection and associated mortality. The presence of multiple comorbid conditions may contribute to varied clinical presentations and poor outcomes in hemodialysis (HD)-dependent patients with cardiac device infection.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

CIED infections in HD patients (n=17) and non-HD patients (n=398) at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, between 1991 and 2008.

OUTCOMES

Surgical management and death.

MEASUREMENTS

Clinical presentations, microbial organisms.

RESULTS

Of 415 patients admitted with CIED infection, 17 (4%) were receiving maintenance HD therapy. Among those on HD therapy, mean age was 72±15 (SD) years, 59% were women, and 53% had a central venous catheter for dialysis access. All 17 patients receiving HD therapy presented with CIED-associated bloodstream infection and 41% of these had infected vegetations on CIED leads or cardiac valves. A majority (82%) were managed with complete device removal and almost half (43%) received a replacement device when bloodstream infection cleared. Device infection was associated with significant short-term mortality in HD patients and 90-day survival was only 76% in this group of patients.

LIMITATIONS

Smaller sample size, majority white cohort, observational study.

CONCLUSIONS

CIED infection in patients receiving HD usually is associated with bloodstream infection and frequently is complicated with device-related endocarditis. Despite complete device removal in the majority of HD patients with infection, mortality remains high.