Effect of Prior Sternotomy on Outcomes in Transvenous Lead Extraction

Leadless Pacemakers in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

Transcatheter leadless pacemakers have benefits in congenital heart disease because they eliminate the risks of lead malfunction, venous occlusions, and pocket complications. This newest pacemaker's utility in this population has been limited by the large sheath and delivery system, need for atrioventricular synchronous pacing, lack of explantation options, and possible lack of adequate access to the subpulmonary ventricle. With careful planning, leadless pacing can be successfully performed in these patients. Consideration of nonfemoral access, alternative implant sites to avoid myocardial scar or prosthetic material, anticoagulation for patients with persistent intracardiac shunts or systemic ventricular implantation, and operator experience are critical.

Assessing long-term survival and hospitalization following transvenous lead extraction in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices: A propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Longer-term outcomes of patients post transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are poorly understood in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices.

Objectives

A propensity score (PS)–matched analysis evaluating outcomes post TLE in CRT and non-CRT populations was performed.

Methods

Data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2000 and 2019 were prospectively collected. Patients surviving to discharge and reimplanted with the same device were included. The cohort was split depending on presence of CRT device. Associations with all-cause mortality and hospitalization were assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. An exploratory endpoint was evaluated whether early (<7 days) or late (>7 days) reimplantation was associated with poorer outcomes.

Results

Of 1005 patients included, 285 (25%) had a CRT device. Median follow-up was 57.00 [27.00–93.00] months, age at explant was 67.7 ± 12.1 years, 83.3% were male, and 54.4% had an infective indication for TLE. PS was calculated using 43 baseline characteristics. After matching, 192 CRT patients were compared with 192 non-CRT patients. In the matched cohort, no significant difference with respect to mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.74–1.39], P = .093) or hospitalization risk (HR = 1.2, 95% CI [0.87–1.66], P = .265) was observed. In the matched CRT group, late reimplantation was associated with increased mortality (HR = 1.64, [1.04–2.57], P = .032) and hospitalization risk (HR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.00–2.46], P = .049].

Conclusion

Outcomes of CRT patients post TLE are similarly as poor as those of non-CRT patients in matched populations. Reimplantation within 7 days was associated with better outcomes in a CRT population but was not observed in a non-CRT population, suggesting prolonged periods without biventricular pacing should be avoided.

Predictors of perforation during lead extraction: Results of the Canadian Lead ExtrAction Risk (CLEAR) study

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction can have serious adverse events, such as cardiac or vascular perforation. Risk factors have not been well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with perforation and death, and to characterize lead extraction in a large contemporary population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicenter study examining patients undergoing lead extraction at 8 Canadian institutions from 1996 through 2016. Demographic and clinical data were used to identify variables associated with perforation and mortality using logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 2325 consecutive patients (age 61.9 ±16.5 years) underwent extraction of 4527 leads. Perforation rate was 2.7% (63/2325) and 30-day mortality was 1.6% (38/2325), with mortality of 0.4% due to perforation (10/2325). Variables associated with perforation included no previous cardiac surgery (odds ratio [OR] 3.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54-7.19; P = .002), female sex (OR 3.27; 95% CI 1.91-5.60; P <.001); left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40% (OR 2.81; 95% CI 1.28-6.14; P = .010); lead age >8 years (OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.52-4.60; P <.001); ≥2 leads extracted (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.23-5.04; P = .011); and diabetes (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.16-3.86; P = .014). Variables associated with death included infection as indication for extraction (OR 3.85; 95% CI 1.38-10.73; P = .010); anemia (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.38-6.61; P = .003), and patient age (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; P = .012).

CONCLUSION

Risk factors associated with perforation in lead extraction include no history of cardiac surgery, female sex, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, lead age >8 years, ≥2 leads extracted, and diabetes.

Endovascular occlusion balloon-related thrombosis during transvenous lead extraction

AIMS

The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of balloon-related thrombosis (BRT) in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Use of an endovascular occlusion balloon has improved outcomes of superior vena cava injuries during TLE. Its thrombogenicity in clinical practice is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively evaluated consecutive patients undergoing prophylactic balloon placement during TLE utilizing two procedural workflows: one with the balloon within the inferior vena cava during the entire case (standard cohort) and one limiting the balloon's dwell time (abbreviated cohort). Intracardiac echocardiography was used to evaluate for significant BRT (thrombus > 1 cm) after TLE. Forty-two patients (21 in each group) were included. Age, left ventricular ejection fraction, procedural indication, number of leads, and lead dwell time were similar between the groups. Balloon dwell time was significantly longer in the standard group (128 ± 74 vs. 25 ± 18 min, P < 0.001) as was BRT (14/21 vs. 1/21, P < 0.001). Mean thrombus length and width in the standard group was 3.99 ± 1.40 and 0.45 ± 0.16 cm, respectively and 5.2 × 0.4 cm in one patient in the abbreviated group. Between patients with and without BRT in the standard group, balloon dwell times were similar (113 ± 64 vs. 156 ± 88 min, P = 0.21). One patient in the standard group had a pulmonary embolism on post-operative Day 3 and was initiated on oral anticoagulation.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic balloon placement for the entirety of the case is associated with a high incidence of BRT; a finding that is decreased when an abbreviated workflow is utilized.