LECOM (Lead Extraction COMplexity): A New Scoring System for Predicting a Difficult Procedure

The Long-Term Outcomes of Inactive Pacemaker Lead Abandonment in Children and Dramatic Observation of Complications

Transvenous extraction of the leads in children is associated with a higher risk of serious complications, that is why it is reluctantly performed. Unfortunately, this conservative approach has been associated with secondary complications (tricuspid valve dysfunction and bilateral venous obstruction), adverse events during lead removal procedure and recanalization and stenting of chest veins. We present a case of a 27-year-old female with a pacemaker and insertion of two new leads on the opposite side of the chest leaving the old ones in place.

Removal of Spontaneously Fractured Leads with Their Proximal Ends in the Heart and Vasculature-Description of Different Approaches and Tools

Background: Removal of spontaneously fractured leads with their proximal ends migrated into the vascular space has not been analysed in detail thus far. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and auxiliary tools for removing fractured leads with migrated proximal ends. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 72 cases from a database containing 3847 TLEs (transvenous lead extraction). Results: Most of the leads were passive, especially unipolar. Procedure complexity in such cases was high but with satisfying effectiveness (procedural success rate 93.06%) and independent of the position of the proximal end. The rate of major complications was 2.78%, which may be attributed to long implant duration (152.2 months). Extraction of such leads did not influence long-term survival. The femoral approach was most often used (62.50%). In 79.16% of leads, mechanical dissection was required. In 66.7%, proximal ends were strongly attached to the wall, and a loop had to be applied. In 15.28% of procedures, the lead was wrapped around a pig-tail catheter ("spaghetti twisting technique"). Conclusions: (1) Spontaneous lead fracture with the proximal ends migrated into the vascular space is a rare finding (1.87% of the TLE). (2) Removal of such leads requires the use of different approaches as well as dedicated and non-dedicated tools. (3) Despite a high level of procedure complexity, its effectiveness is high, with an acceptable rate of major complications.

Arrhythmia Detection in Atrioventricular, Single-Lead, Floating Atrial Dipole ICD Systems Compared with Conventional Single- and Dual-Chamber Defibrillators

BACKGROUND

An atrioventricular defibrillator system with a floating atrial dipole (VDD ICD) can provide atrial sensing by a single lead. Our aim was to compare the arrhythmia detection efficacy of VDD ICDs with conventional single- (VVI) and dual-chamber (DDD) defibrillators.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was the incidence of device-detected, new-onset atrial arrhythmias, while secondary endpoints were sensing parameters, complication rates, incidence of appropriate/inappropriate ICD therapy, arrhythmic/heart failure-related hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients (mean age 64 ± 12 years, male 75%, primary prophylaxis 28%, mean follow-up 3.7 ± 2.4 years) were included (VVI: 93, VDD: 94, DDD: 69). Atrial arrhythmia episodes were detected more frequently by VDD systems compared to VVI ICDs (aHR 7.087; 95% CI 2.371-21.183; p < 0.001), and at a rate similar to that of DDD ICDs (aHR 1.781; 95% CI 0.737-4.301; p = 0.200). The rate of inappropriate shocks was not different among the three ICD systems.

CONCLUSION

VDD devices revealed an advantage in atrial arrhythmia detection compared to VVI ICDs and were non-inferior to DDD systems. Their main indication may be closer monitoring in high-risk patients with atrial arrhythmias to help therapy optimization and not the improvement of tachycardia discrimination.

Removal of leads broken during extraction: A comparison of different approaches and tools

BACKGROUND

Extraction of a broken lead fragment (BLF) has received scant attention in the literature.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was to compare the effectiveness of different approaches and tools used for BLF removal during 127 procedures.

RESULTS

A superior approach was the most popular (75.6%), femoral (15.7%) and combined (8.7%) approaches were the least common. Of 127 BLFs 78 (61.4%) were removed in their entirety and BLF length was significantly reduced to less than 4 cm in 21 (16.5%) or lead tip in 12 (9.4%) cases. The best results were achieved when BLFs were longer (>4 cm) (62/93 66.7% of longer BLFs), either in the case of BLFs free-floating in vascular bed including pulmonary circulation (68.4% of them) but not in cases of short BLFs (20.0% of short BLFs). Complete procedural success was achieved in 57.5% of procedures, the lead tip retained in the heart wall in 12 cases (9.4%) and short BLFs were found in 26.0%, whereas BLFs >4 cm were left in place in four cases (3.1%) of procedures only. There was no relationship between approach in lead remnant removal and long-term mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Effectiveness of fractured lead removal is satisfactory: entire BLFs were removed in 61.4% (total procedural success-57.5%, was lower because five major complications occurred) and BLF length was significantly reduced in 26.0%. (2) Among the broken leads, leads with a long stay in the patient (16.3 years on average), passive leads (97.6%) and pacemaker leads 92.1% are significantly more common, but not ICD leads (only 7.9% of lead fractures) compared to TLE without lead fractures. (3) Broken lead removal (superior approach) using a CS access sheath as a "subclavian workstation" for continuation of dilatation with conventional tools deserves attention. (4) Lead fracture management should become an integral part of training in transvenous lead extraction.

What Important Information Does Transesophageal Echocardiography Provide When Performed before Transvenous Lead Extraction?

Background: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is mandatory before transvenous lead extraction (TLE), but its usefulness remains underestimated. This study aims to describe the broad range of TEE findings in TLE candidates, as well as their influence on procedure complexity, major complications (MCs) and long-term survival. Methods: Preoperative TEE was performed in 1191 patients undergoing TLE. Results: Lead thickening (OR = 1.536; p = 0.007), lead adhesion to heart structures (OR = 2.531; p < 0.001) and abnormally long lead loops (OR = 1.632; p = 0.006) increased the complexity of TLE. Vegetation-like masses on the lead (OR = 4.080; p = 0.44), lead thickening (OR = 2.389; p = 0.049) and lead adhesion to heart structures (OR = 6.341; p < 0.001) increased the rate of MCs. The presence of vegetations (HR = 7.254; p < 0.001) was the strongest predictor of death during a 1-year follow-up period. Conclusions: TEE before TLE provides a lot of important information for the operator. Apart from the visualization of possible vegetations, it can also detect various forms of lead-related scar tissue. Build-up of scar tissue and the presence of long lead loops are associated with increased complexity of the procedure and risk of MCs. Preoperative TEE performed outside the operating room may have an impact on the clinical decision-making process, such as transferring potentially more difficult patients to a more experienced center or having the procedure performed by the most experienced operator. Moreover, the presence of masses or vegetations on the leads significantly increases 1-year and all-cause mortality.

Extraction of His Bundle Pacing Lead: More Difficult than Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction: An Analysis of 3897 Lead Extraction Procedures Including 27 His and 253 Coronary Sinus Lead Removals

BACKGROUND

Experience with the transvenous extraction of leads used for His bundle pacing (HBP) is limited.

METHODS

Analysis of 3897 extractions including 27 HBP and 253 LVP (left ventricular pacing) leads.

RESULTS

The main reason for HBP lead extraction was lead failure (59.26%). The age of HBP and LVP leads (54.52 vs. 50.20 months) was comparable, whereas procedure difficulties were related to the LVP lead dwell time. The extraction of HBP leads > 40 months old was longer than the removal of younger leads (8.57 vs. 3.87 min), procedure difficulties occurred in 14.29%, and advanced tools were required in 28.57%. There were no major complications. The extraction time of dysfunctional or infected leads was similar in the HBP and LVP groups (log-rank p = 0.868) but shorter when compared to groups with other leads. Survival after the procedure did not differ between HBP and LVP groups but was shorter than in the remaining patients.

CONCLUSIONS

1. HBP is used in CRT-D systems for resynchronisation of the failing heart in 33.33%. 2. Extraction of HBP leads is most frequently performed for non-infectious indications (59.26%) and most often because of lead dysfunction (33.33%). 3. The extraction of "old" (>40 months) HBP leads is longer (8.57 vs. 3.87 min) and more difficult than the removal of "young" leads due to unexpected procedure difficulties (14.29%) and the use of second line/advanced tools (28.57%), but it does not entail the risk of major complications and procedure-related death and is comparable to those encountered in the extraction of LVP leads of a similar age. 4. Survival after lead extraction was comparable between HBP and LVP groups but shorter compared to patients who underwent the removal of other leads.

Lead Break during Extraction: Predisposing Factors and Impact on Procedure Complexity and Outcome: Analysis of 3825 Procedures

Background: Currently, there are no reports describing lead break (LB) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 3825 consecutive TLEs using mechanical sheaths. Results: Fracture of the lead, defined as LB, with a long lead fragment (LF) occurred in 2.48%, LB with a short LF in 1.20%, LB with the tip of the lead in 1.78%, and LB with loss of a free-floating LF in 0.57% of cases. In total, extractions with LB occurred in 6.04% of the cases studied. In cases in which the lead remnant comprises more than the tip only, there was a 50.31% chance of removing the lead fragment in its entirety and an 18.41% chance of significantly reducing its length (to less than 4 cm). Risk factors for LB are similar to those for major complications and increased procedure complexity, including long lead dwell time [OR = 1.018], a higher LV ejection fraction, multiple previous CIED-related procedures, and the extraction of passive fixation leads. The LECOM and LED scores also exhibit a high predictive value. All forms of LB were associated with increased procedure complexity and major complications (9.96 vs. 1.53%). There was no incidence of procedure-related death among such patients, and LB did not affect the survival statistics after TLE. Conclusions: LB during TLE occurs in 6.04% of procedures, and this predictable difficulty increases procedure complexity and the risk of major complications. Thus, the possibility of LB should be taken into account when planning the lead extraction strategy and its associated training.

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

VDD Lead Extraction-Differences with Other Leads and Practical Tips in Management

Background: VDD (atrial sensing, ventricular sensing/pacing) leads are relatively rarely implanted; therefore, experience in their extraction is very limited. We aimed to investigate whether VDD lead removal may be a risk factor for the increased complexity of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) or major complications. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3808 TLE procedures (including 103 patients with VDD leads). Results: If TLE included VDD lead removal, procedure duration (lead dilation time) was prolonged, complicated extractions were slightly more common, and more advanced tools were required. This is partly due to longer implant duration (in patients with VDD systems-135.2 months; systems without VDD leads-109.3 months; p < 0.001), more frequent presence of abandoned leads (all systems containing VDD leads-22.33% and all systems without VDD leads-10.77%), and partly to the younger age of patients with VDD leads (51.74 vs. 57.72 years; p < 0.001, in the remaining patients) at the time of system implantation. VDD lead extraction does not increase the risk of major complications (1.94 vs. 2.34%; p = 0.905). Conclusions: The extraction of VDD leads may be considered a risk factor for increased procedure complexity, but not for major complications. However, this is not a direct result of VDD lead extraction but specific characteristics of the patients with VDD leads. Operator skill and team experience combined with special custom maneuvers can enable favorable results to be achieved despite the specific design of VDD leads, even with older VDD lead models.