Transvenous Lead Extraction: Work in Progress

Lead Extraction-Indications, Procedure, and Future Directions

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation has steadily increased in the United States owing to increased life expectancy, better access to health care, and the adoption of updated guidelines. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is an invasive technique for the removal of CIED devices, and the most common indications include device infections, lead failures, and venous occlusion. Although in-hospital and procedure-related deaths for patients undergoing TLE are low, the long-term mortality remains high with 10-year survival reported close to 50% after TLE. This is likely demonstrative of the increased burden of comorbidities with aging. There are guidelines provided by various professional societies, including the Heart Rhythm Society, regarding indications for lead extraction and management of these patients. In this paper, we will review the indications for CIED extraction, procedural considerations, and management of these patients based upon the latest guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of mechanical transvenous lead extraction: median follow-up analysis and development of an experimental model for predicting survival post-extraction

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is on the rise, accompanied by an increase in its inevitable complications such as different types of CIED infections that require further therapy and potential device extraction. Ensuring efficacy and safety remains paramount in transvenous lead extraction (TLE), given the complex nature of the procedure. The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of relatively low-cost mechanical TLE, including mid-term clinical follow-up, and to develop a predictive model for post-TLE survival. This study included all consecutive patients admitted for TLE at two tertiary medical centers between 2016 and 2021. Baseline characteristics, TLE procedure details complications occurring during and/or after the procedure and follow-up outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

During the 5-year period, 100 consecutive patients underwent TLE. The mean age of the subjects was 61 ± 3 years. The average time from lead implantation to TLE was 69.34 ± 9.36 months, with a total of 216 leads extracted. The most common indication for TLE was infection observed in 87% of subjects with pocket infection seen in the majority (84%). Complete clinical success was achieved in 98% of patients, with major complications occurred in 5% of cases and only one case of peri-procedural death. Proposed experimental model showed that near 50% of the patients will live less than 73.29 months.

CONCLUSION

TLE demonstrated a high level of safety with low mortality and morbidity rates. Using low cost widely available mechanical tools is useful for treating CIED-related infections.

Uncomplicated Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Extraction After 4 Years Dwell Time: A Case Report

The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV-ICD) was developed to overcome complications associated with transvenous leads while being able to deliver anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). The lead is implanted in the substernal space, which makes extraction a cautious procedure. We present a case of a 51-year-old women with a successful EV-ICD extraction after a lead dwell time of 4 years, which is the longest reported. The EV-ICD lead was extracted using simple traction after the removal of all adhesions at the xiphoidal site around the lead. We advise to only use extraction tools if the initial attempt is not successful and if no adhesions at the caudal part of the lead are visible anymore, as these tools could also damage the surrounding tissue and the lead.

Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention in the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device; state of the art review

A large proportion of patients referred for transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI) will have the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). In such patients, surgical correction of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) could potentially ameliorate CIED-induced TR; however, it carries inherent risks and frequently does not result in TR improvement. As multiple TTVI devices are in trial to gain regulatory approval, understanding which therapy is most appropriate among patients with a CIED is essential. This review centers on the nonsurgical treatment, including TLE and transcatheter tricuspid valve repair and replacement options, aimed at enhancing outcomes in patients with TR who also have concurrent CIEDs.

Prevention and Risk Assessment of Cardiac Device Infections in Clinical Practice

The implantation of cardiac electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and defibrillators, has become increasingly prevalent in recent years and has been accompanied by a significant rise in cardiac device infections (CDIs), which pose a substantial clinical and economic burden. CDIs are associated with hospitalizations and prolonged antibiotic therapy and often necessitate device removal, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs worldwide. Approximately 1-2% of CIED implants are associated with infections, making this a critical issue to address. In this contemporary review, we discuss the burden of CDIs with their risk factors, healthcare costs, prevention strategies, and clinical management.

Impact of fixation mechanism and helix retraction status on right ventricular lead extraction

Background

The impact of lead fixation mechanism on extractability is poorly characterized.

Objective

We aimed to compare the technical difficulty of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of active vs passive fixation right ventricular (RV) leads.

Methods

A total of 408 patients who underwent RV TLE by a single expert electrophysiologist at Oregon Health & Science University between October 2011 and June 2022 were identified and retrospectively analyzed; 331 (81%) had active fixation RV leads and 77 (19%) had passive fixation RV leads. The active fixation cohort was further stratified into those with successfully retracted helices (n = 181) and failed helix retraction (n = 109). A numerical system (0-9) devised using 6 procedural criteria quantified a technical extraction score (TES) for each RV TLE. The TES was compared between groups.

Results

Helix retraction was successful in ≥55% of active fixation TLEs. The mean TES for active-helix retracted, active-helix non-retracted, and passive fixation groups was 1.8, 3.5, and 3.7, respectively. The TES of the active-helix retracted group was significantly lower than those of the active-helix non-retracted group (adjusted P < .01) and the passive fixation group (adjusted P < .01). There was no significant difference in TES between the passive fixation and active-helix non-retracted groups in multivariate analysis (P = .18). The TLE success rate of the entire cohort was >97%, with a major complication rate of 0.5%.

Conclusion

TLE of active fixation leads where helical retraction is achieved presents fewer technical challenges than does passive fixation RV lead extraction; however, if the helix cannot be retracted, active and passive TLE procedures present similar technical challenges.