Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction

Transvenous lead extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A comprehensive outcome-and risk factor analysis

BACKGROUND

Device complications, such as infection or lead dysfunction necessitating transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are continuously rising amongst patients with transvenous implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

OBJECTIVES

Aim of this study was to characterize the procedural outcome and risk-factors of patients with indwelling 1- and 2-chamber ICD undergoing TLE.

METHODS

We conducted a subgroup analysis of all ICD patients in the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) database. Predictors for procedural failure and all-cause mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 842 patients with an ICD undergoing TLE with the mean age of 62.8 ± 13.8 years. A total number of 1610 leads were treated with lead dysfunction (48.5%) as leading indication for extraction, followed by device-related infection (45.4%). Lead-per-patient ratio was 1.91 ± 0.88 and 60.0% of patients had dual-coil defibrillator leads. Additional extraction tools, such as mechanical rotating dilator sheaths and snares were utilized in 6.5% of cases. Overall procedural complications occurred in 4.3% with 2.0% major complications and a procedure-related mortality of 0.8%. Clinical success rate was 97.9%. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 3.4%, with sepsis being the leading cause for mortality. Multivariate analysis revealed lead-age ≥10 years (OR:5.82, 95%CI:2.1-16.6; p = .001) as independent predictor for procedural failure. Systemic infection (OR:9.57, 95%CI:2.2-42.4; p < .001) and procedural complications (OR:8.0, 95%CI:2.8-23.3; p < .001) were identified as risk factors for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE is safe and efficacious in patients with 1- and 2-chamber ICD. Although lead dysfunction is the leading indication for extraction, systemic device-related infection is the main driver of all-cause mortality for ICD patients undergoing TLE.

Transvenous lead extraction in patients with systemic cardiac device-related infection-Procedural outcome and risk prediction: A GALLERY subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) has evolved as one of the most crucial treatment options for patients with cardiac device-related systemic infection (CDRSI).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to characterize the procedural outcome and risk factors of patients with CDRSI undergoing TLE.

METHODS

A subgroup analysis of patients with CDRSI of the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) database was performed. Predictors for complications, procedural failure, and all-cause mortality were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 722 patients (28.6%) in the GALLERY had "systemic infection" as extraction indication. Patients with CDRSI were older (70.1 ± 12.2 years vs 67.3 ± 14.3 years; P < .001) and had more comorbidities than patients with local infections or noninfectious extraction indications. There were no differences in complete procedural success (90.6% vs 91.7%; P = .328) or major complications (2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .416) but increased procedure-related (1.4% vs 0.3%; P = .003) and all-cause in-hospital mortality (11.1% vs 0.6%; P < .001) for patients with CDRSI. Multivariate analyses revealed lead age ≥10 years as a predictor for procedural complications (odds ratio [OR] 3.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-6.60; P = .001). Lead age ≥10 years (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.03-6.46; P = .04) was also a predictor for procedural failure. We identified left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.00-2.99; P = .049), age ≥75 years (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.27-3.48; P = .004), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.17-3.14; P = .01), and overall procedural complications (OR 5.15; 95% CI 2.44-10.84; P < .001) as predictors for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CDRSI undergoing TLE demonstrate an increased rate of all-cause in-hospital, as well as procedure-related mortality, despite having comparable procedural success rates. Given these data, it seems paramount to develop preventive strategies to detect and treat CDRSI in its earliest stages.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction: safety, efficacy and outcome

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a suitable alternative for transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) patients who have undergone transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Limited data are available on the outcome of S-ICD patients implanted after TLE. We assessed the safety, efficacy, and outcome of S-ICD implantation after TLE of TV-ICD.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 36 consecutive patients with a median age of 52 (44-66) years who underwent S-ICD implantation after TLE of TV-ICD.

RESULTS

Indications for TLE were infection (63.9%) and lead malfunction (36.1%). During a median follow-up of 31 months, 3 patients (8.3%) experienced appropriate therapy and 7 patients (19.4%) experienced complications including inappropriate therapy (n = 4; 11.1%), isolated pocket erosion (n = 2; 5.5%), and ineffective therapy (n = 1; 2.8%). No lead/hardware dysfunction was reported. Premature device explantation occurred in 4 patients (11%). Eight patients (22.2%) died during follow-up, six of them (75%) because of refractory heart failure (HF). There were no S-ICD-related deaths. Predictors of mortality included NYHA class ≥ 2 (HR 5.05; 95% CI 1.00-26.38; p = 0.04), hypertension (HR 22.72; 95% CI 1.05-26.31; p = 0.02), diabetes (HR 10.64; 95% CI 2.05-55.60; p = 0.001) and ischemic heart disease (HR 5.92; 95% CI 1.17-30.30; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides evidences on the use of S-ICD as an alternative after TV-ICD explantation for both infection and lead failure. Mortality of S-ICD patients who underwent TV-ICD explantation does not appear to be correlated with the presence of a prior infection, S-ICD therapy (appropriate or inappropriate), or S-ICD complications but rather to worsening of HF or other comorbidities.

Air entrapment as a potential cause of early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunction: a systematic review of the literature

AIMS

Air entrapment (AE) has been reported as a potential cause of early inappropriate shocks (ISs) following subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, but a cause-effect relationship is not always evident. This systematic review aims to analyse this phenomenon concerning implantation techniques, electrogram (EGM) features, radiologic findings, and patient management.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases following the PRISMA guidelines to obtain all available literature data since 2010 on S-ICD malfunctions possibly due to AE. The final analysis included 54 patients with AE as a potential cause of S-ICD malfunction. Overall, the aggregate incidence of this condition was 1.2%. Of ICD malfunctions possibly due to AE, 93% were ISs, and 95% were recorded within the first week following implantation. Radiologic diagnosis of AE was confirmed in 28% of the entire study cohort and in 68% of patients in whom this diagnostic examination was reported. At the time of device malfunction, EGMs showed artefacts, baseline drift, and QRS voltage reduction in 95, 76, and 67% of episodes, respectively. Management included ICD reprogramming or testing, no action (observation), and invasive implant revision in 57, 33, and 10% of patients, respectively. No recurrences occurred during follow-up, irrespective of management performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Device malfunction possibly due to AE may occur in ∼1% of S-ICD recipients. Diagnosis is strongly suggested by early occurrence, characteristic EGM features, and radiologic findings. Non-invasive management, principally device reprogramming, appears to be effective in most patients.

Comparative Assessment of Transvenous versus Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Therapy Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous (S-ICD) and transvenous (TV-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices effectively reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients at a high risk of ventricular arrhythmias. This study aimed to evaluate the safe replacement of TV-ICD with S-ICD based on updated recent evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, JSTOR, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library on 30 July 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 26 studies that examined 7542 (58.27%) patients with S-ICD and 5400 (41.72%) with TV-ICD. The findings indicated that, compared to patients with TV-ICD, patients with S-ICD had a lower incidence of defibrillation lead failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.98; p = 0.05), lead displacement or fracture (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.86; p = 0.0003), pneumothorax and/or hemothorax (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.97, p = 0.05), device failure (OR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.95, p = 0.02), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.44 [95% CI 0.32, 0.60], p < 0.001), and lead erosion (OR: 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.05, p < 0.001). Patients with TV-ICD had a higher incidence of pocket complications than patients with S-ICD (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.23-3.69; p = 0.007) and a higher but insignificant incidence of inappropriate sensing (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 0.97-12.86; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The S-ICD algorithm was safer and more effective than the TV-ICD system as it minimized the incidence of pocket complications, lead displacement or fracture, inappropriate sensing, defibrillation lead failure, pneumothorax/hemothorax, device failure, lead erosion, and all-cause mortality. Future studies should explore the scope of integrating novel algorithms with the current S-ICD systems to improve cardiovascular outcomes.