Long-term incidence of upper extremity venous obstruction in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients

Long-Term Complications Related to Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used for a number of cardiac-related conditions, and it is estimated that over 300,000 CIEDs are placed annually in the US. With advances in technology surrounding these devices and expanding indications, CIEDs can remain implanted in patients for long periods of time. Although the safety profile of these devices has improved over time, both the incidence and prevalence of long-term complications are expected to increase. This review highlights pertinent long-term complications of CIEDs, including lead-related issues, device-related arrhythmias, inappropriate device therapies, and device-related infections. We also explore key clinical aspects of each complication, including common presentations, patient-specific and non-modifiable risk factors, diagnostic evaluation, and recommended management strategies. Our goal is to help spread awareness of CIED-related complications and to empower physicians to manage them effectively.

Evaluation of a second-generation intercostal extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead with a pectoral pulse generator for sensing, defibrillation, and anti-tachycardia pacing

AIMS

Intercostal extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV-ICD) leads may work better in contact with the pericardium thereby directing pacing and defibrillation energy towards excitable myocytes. We report 3-month safety and performance outcomes with a second-generation intercostal EV-ICD lead paired with standard, commercially available ICD pulse generators (PGs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Subjects undergoing a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) procedure received a concomitant intercostal EV-ICD lead system. The intercostal EV-ICD lead was connected sequentially to a PG in a left pectoral and then a left mid-axillary location. Extravascular ICD lead assessment included sensing and defibrillation of induced ventricular arrhythmias and pacing capture. The intercostal EV-ICD system was followed in a 'recording-only' mode and the control TV-ICD system in 'therapy delivery' mode to compare stored events. Devices were evaluated prior to hospital discharge, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months post-implant. Defibrillation testing was repeated prior to lead removal; 20/20 (100%) were successfully implanted (median implant time of 9 min). Two major lead complications were reported over a mean of 82 days: (i) lead movement and (ii) infection of both the TV-ICD and EV-ICD systems. Intraoperative pacing capture was achieved with the integrated bipolar configuration in 19 of 20 (95%) subjects. Pacing capture with the EV-ICD system was tolerated in all subjects, with over 90% feeling no pain after a 1-month recovery from the procedure. Induced VF episodes were sensed in all subjects and defibrillated successfully in 17 of 17 patients (100%) with a left mid-axillary PG and 19 of 20 patients (95%) with a left pectoral PG. Sensing and defibrillation were successful in 18 of 18 (100%) tested prior to lead removal.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot experience with a second-generation intercostal EV-ICD lead implantation, sensing and defibrillation of induced VF were successful when paired with a standard ICD PG from either a left mid-axillary or pectoral pocket.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT number: NCT05791032; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05791032.

Percutaneous balloon venoplasty for symptomatic lead-related venous stenosis

BACKGROUND

Lead-related venous stenosis (LRVS) is common after transvenous lead implantation and generally diagnosed incidentally. Symptomatic LRVS, causing discomfort and swelling, is less common.

OBJECTIVE

We report on the management and outcomes of patients with symptomatic LRVS after percutaneous balloon venoplasty.

METHODS

We included patients with symptomatic LRVS unresponsive to >30 days of anticoagulation who underwent venoplasty at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between 2014 and 2020. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) was performed first if the lesion could not be crossed with a wire.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (mean age, 62 ± 10 years; 44% female) underwent 27 venoplasty procedures. Symptoms included arm swelling in 9 (50%), facial/neck swelling in 1 (6%), and both in 8 (44%). Venography revealed LRVS in the axillary/subclavian veins in 10 (56%), the brachiocephalic vein in 6 (33%), and the superior vena cava in 4 (11%). Most patients (83%) required TLE before venoplasty, and only 5 of 18 (28%) remained with leads crossing the stenosed segment. Thirteen patients (72%) had complete symptom resolution, 4 (22%) had partial resolution due to secondary lymphedema, and 1 showed no improvement. Patients with complete resolution had shorter times from symptom onset to intervention (195 vs 690 days; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

LRVS can affect any part of the venous system and may be manifested with swelling of the arm, face/neck, or both. Balloon venoplasty is safe and effective, often requires TLE, and is particularly durable when leads no longer cross the stenosed region. Venoplasty is less effective for secondary lymphedema, highlighting the need for timely intervention.

Transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in young cardiac arrest survivors

Secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are indicated in young patients presenting with aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD) because of ventricular arrhythmias. Transvenous-ICDs (TV-ICDs) are effective, established therapies supported by evidence. The significant morbidity associated with transvenous leads led to the development of the newer subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). This review discusses the clinical considerations when selecting an ICD for the young patient presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The major benefits of TV-ICDs are their ability to pace (antitachycardia pacing [ATP], bradycardia support and cardiac resynchronisation therapy [CRT]) and the robust evidence base supporting their use. Other benefits include a longer battery life. Significant complications associated with transvenous leads include pneumothorax and tamponade during insertion and infection and lead failure in the long term. Comparatively, S-ICDs, by virtue of having no intravascular leads, prevent these complications. S-ICDs have been associated with a higher incidence of inappropriate shocks. Patients with an indication for bradycardia pacing, CRT or ATP (documented ventricular tachycardia) are seen as unsuitable for a S-ICD. If venous access is unsuitable or undesirable, S-ICDs should be considered given the patient is appropriately screened. There is a need for further randomised controlled trials to directly compare the two devices. TV-ICDs are an effective therapy for preventing SCD limited by significant lead-related complications. S-ICDs are an important development hindered largely by an inability to pace. Young patients stand to gain the most from a S-ICD as the cumulative risk of lead-related complications is high. A clinical framework to aid decision-making is presented.

Initial Experience With Intercostal Insertion of an Extravascular ICD Lead Compatible With Existing Pulse Generators

BACKGROUND

This study assessed safety and feasibility of a novel extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead when inserted anteriorly through a rib space and connected to various commercially available ICD pulse generators (PGs) placed in either a left mid-axillary or left pectoral pocket. Currently available or investigational, extravascular-ICDs include a subcutaneous or subxiphoid lead connected to customized extravascular-ICD PGs.

METHODS

This novel extravascular-ICD (AtaCor Medical Inc, San Clemente, CA) employs a unique intercostal implant technique and is designed to function with commercial DF-4 ICD PGs. In this nonrandomized, single-center, acute study, 36 de novo or replacement ICD (transvenous ICD) patients enrolled to receive a concomitant extravascular-ICD lead inserted through an intercostal space along the left parasternal margin. extravascular-ICD leads were connected to DF-4 compatible ICD PGs positioned in either a left mid-axillary or pectoral pocket for acute sensing and defibrillation testing. Defibrillation testing started at 30 Joules (J) and stepped up or down in 5 to 10 joule increments depending on the success and limitations of the generator used.

RESULTS

Successful acute defibrillation using ≤35 J was noted in 100% of left mid-axillary PG subjects (n=27, mean 16.3±8.6 J) and 83% of left pectoral PG subjects (n=6, mean 21.0±8.4 J). Furthermore, 24 of 27 (89%) of patients tested with a left, mid-axillary intermuscular PG had successful VF conversion with defibrillation energies at least 10 J below the maximum delivered output of the device. All evaluable episodes (n=93) were automatically sensed, detected, and shocked. No serious device-related intraoperative adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This first-in-human study documented the safe and reliable placement of a novel extravascular ICD lead with effective sensing and defibrillation of induced ventricular fibrillation using commercial DF-4 ICD PGs.

Risk Factors of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis After Pacemaker Implantation

Objective. To evaluate the prevalence, risk factors and treatment outcomes of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis after pacemaker implantation. Material and methods. A prospective single-center study included patients with indications for pacemaker implantation. The follow-up period was 12 months. Physical examination, ultrasound of upper and lower extremity veins and monitoring of pacemaker function were carried out before implantation, 1 and 12 months later. Additional ultrasound was necessary for treatment control in case of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. Results. There were 148 patients. Venous thromboembolism occurred in 10 (6.8%) cases throughout the follow-up period: 8 (5.4%) cases of subclavian vein thrombosis and 2 (1.4%) cases of superficial thrombophlebitis of lower extremities. According to multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis was 6.4 times (p=0.033) higher in patients receiving antiplatelet agents (acetylsalicylic acid) compared to anticoagulants. Treatment of venous thrombosis implied rivaroxaban. In 5 out of 6 patients, vein recanalization was achieved within 3 months, in 1 case — within 12 months. One patient had subconjunctival hemorrhage that required short-term discontinuation of anticoagulation without effect on baseline result. Conclusion. Annual incidence of venous thromboembolism after pacemaker implantation was 6.8%. Risk factor of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis was the type of antithrombotic therapy.

Subclavian Effort and Upper Limb Thrombosis – a Lesson Learned

Subclavian vein effort and upper limb thrombosis, known as the Paget-Schroetter syndrome (PSS), accounts for 30–40 % of spontaneous upper extremity deep vein thromboses (UEDVTs) and 10–20 % of all upper limb deep vein thromboses (DVTs). As complication of PSS include post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, early recognition and prompt initiation of anticoagulant treatment is crucial in the course of its treatment. PSS is associated with single or repeated physical activity of the upper limb, combined with obstruction of venous outflow resulting from anatomical alterations. A correct diagnosis, based on a range of imaging methods, and prompt initiation of local thrombolytic therapy, surgical decompression of the thoracic outlet (when necessary), and immediate initiation of anticoagulant treatment, aim to effectively restore the patient life quality, preventing post-thrombotic syndrome and recurrent thrombosis.

Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in Patients With Implanted Cardiac Devices: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Cardiac implantable electronic device implantation rates have increased in recent decades. Venous obstruction of the subclavian, brachiocephalic, or superior vena cava veins represents an important complication of implanted leads. These forms of venous obstruction can result in significant symptoms as well as present a barrier to the implantation of additional device leads. The risk factors for the development of these complications remain poorly understood, and diagnosis relies on clinical recognition and cross-sectional imaging. Anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment, and thrombus debulking, lead extraction, venoplasty, and stenting are all important therapeutic interventions. This review provides a multidisciplinary-based approach to the evaluation and management of cardiac implantable electronic device lead-associated venous obstruction.