Avoiding damage to transvenous leads-A comparison of electrocautery techniques and two insulated electrocautery blades

[Surgical basics of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation from skin incision through closure]

Implantation of pacemakers is generally considered a "minor intervention". Younger colleagues obtain their skills from experienced ones; ideally not just over the course of one or two interventions under surveillance but until a certain level of confidence is achieved. In Germany, certification is still optional. The German Cardiology Society (DSC, "Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie") provides expertise courses to obtain basic knowledge of pacemaker therapy; the GCS/GSCVS has been offering certification modules since 2013 to acquire fundamental knowledge from experts and basic technical skills by simulator training. The present article illustrates the major aspects of pacemaker implantation procedures and some avoidable pitfalls.

Low-temperature electrocautery reduces adverse effects from secondary cardiac implantable electronic device procedures: Insights from the WRAP-IT trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiac device procedures require tissue dissection to free existing device lead(s). Common techniques include blunt dissection, standard electrocautery, and low-temperature electrocautery (PlasmaBlade, Medtronic); however, data on the type of electrosurgical tool used and the development of procedure- or lead-related adverse events are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether standard or low-temperature electrocautery impacts the development of an adverse event.

METHODS

We evaluated patients enrolled in WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic EnveloPe Infection PrevenTion Trial) undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision, upgrade, or replacement. All adverse events were adjudicated by an independent physician committee. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression modeling.

RESULTS

In total, 5641 patients underwent device revision/upgrade/replacement. Electrocautery was used in 5205 patients (92.3%) (mean age 70.6 ± 12.7 years; 28.8% female), and low-temperature electrocautery was used in 1866 patients (35.9%). Compared to standard electrocautery, low-temperature electrocautery was associated with a 23% reduction in the incidence of a procedure- or lead-related adverse event through 3 years of follow up (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.91; P = .002). After controlling for the number of active leads, degree of capsulectomy, degree of lead dissection, and renal dysfunction, low-temperature electrocautery was associated with a 32% lower risk of lead-related adverse events (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89; P = .004). These effects were consistent across a spectrum of lead-related adverse event types.

CONCLUSION

This study represents one of the largest assessments of electrocautery use in patients undergoing CIED revision, upgrade, or replacement procedures. Compared to standard electrocautery, low-temperature electrocautery significantly reduces adverse effects from these procedures.

Lead damage after cardiac implantable device replacement procedure: Comparison between electrical plasma tool and electrocautery

BACKGROUND

Lead damage is a complication caused by lead manipulation or heating damage from conventional electrocautery (EC) after cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) replacement. Application of electrical plasma (PEAK PlasmaBlade) is a new technology that reportedly reduces this risk.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to compare the effect of EC versus PEAK PlasmaBlade on lead parameters and complications after generator replacement procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 410 consecutive patients (840 leads) who underwent CIED replacement using EC (EC group) and 410 consecutive patients (824 leads) using PEAK PlasmaBlade (PlamaBlade group). Pacing lead impedance, incidence of lead damage, and complications were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Lead impedance increased in 393 leads (46.8%) in the EC group versus 282 leads (34.2%) in the PlasmaBlade group (p < .01) with average percent changes of 6.7% and 4.0% (p < .01), respectively. Lead impedance decreased in 438 leads (52.1%) in the EC group versus 507 leads (61.5%) in the PlasmaBlade group (p < .01) with average percent changes of -5.7% and -7.1% (p < .01), respectively. Lead damage requiring lead revision occurred in five leads (0.6%) or after five procedures (1.2%) in the EC group compared to three leads (0.4%, p = .50) or after three procedures (0.7%, p = .48) in the PlasmaBlade group. There were no significant differences in the procedural-related complications between the EC group (nine patients, 2.2%) and the PlasmaBlade group (five patients, 1.2%, p = .28).

CONCLUSION

Conventional electrocautery can potentially damage lead insulations. However, this study shows that when used carefully electrocautery is as safe as the PEAK PlasmaBlade™.