Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port

Background

Lead-dependent venous occlusion may impede the insertion of a central venous access device (CVAD). The aim of this retrospective, cohort study was to assess the chance of implantation of CVAD in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

Methods

We reviewed and analyzed 3,075 venograms of patients with CIEDs undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) between June 2008 and July 2021. Relationship between venous patency and the chance of CVAD placement was estimated.

Results

In 2,318 (75.38%) patients, venography showed no potential obstacles to venous port implantation on the ipsilateral side. In patients with leads on the left side, significant narrowing more often affected the subclavian vein than the brachiocephalic vein [1,595 (55.29%) vs. 830 (28.63%), respectively] or the superior vena cava (SVC) [21 (0.73%) cases]. Furthermore, the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins on the opposite side were also narrowed [35 (2.35%) and 27 (1.24%), respectively]. The chances of port insertion were assessed as easy on CIED side or opposite side in 2,318 (75.38%) and 2,291 (97.91%) patients, respectively), as difficult insertion/questionable performance in 246 (8.00%) and 22 (0.94% patients) and doubtful or impossible insertion/questionable performance in 511 (16.62%)/27 (1.15%) patients with CIED.

Conclusions

(I) Varying degrees of lead-dependent venous obstruction (LDVO) is a frequent finding in patients with CIEDs; (II) the major thoracic veins on the opposite side of the chest may also be significantly narrowed; (III) venography should be considered before attempted CVAD insertion in patients with long lead dwell times or in patients after CIED removal, including planned contralateral port placement.

Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Symptomatic Device Lead-Related Venous Obstruction

BACKGROUND

The incidence and clinical impact of lead-related venous obstruction (LRVO) among patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence of symptomatic LRVO after CIED implant; describe patterns in CIED extraction and revascularization; and quantify LRVO-related health care utilization based on each type of intervention.

METHODS

LRVO status was defined among Medicare beneficiaries after CIED implant from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Cumulative incidence functions of LRVO were estimated by Fine-Gray methods. LRVO predictors were identified using Cox regression. Incidence rates for LRVO-related health care visits were calculated with Poisson models.

RESULTS

Among 649,524 patients who underwent CIED implant, 28,214 developed LRVO, with 5.0% cumulative incidence at maximum follow-up of 5.2 years. Independent predictors of LRVO included CIEDs with >1 lead (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.07-1.15), chronic kidney disease (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.14-1.20), and malignancies (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.20-1.27). Most patients with LRVO (85.2%) were managed conservatively. Among 4,186 (14.8%) patients undergoing intervention, 74.0% underwent CIED extraction and 26.0% percutaneous revascularization. Notably, 90% of the patients did not receive another CIED after extraction, with low use (2.2%) of leadless pacemakers. In adjusted models, extraction was associated with significant reductions in LRVO-related health care utilization (adjusted rate ratio: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.52-0.66) compared with conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large nationwide sample, the incidence of LRVO was substantial, affecting 1 of every 20 patients with CIEDs. Device extraction was the most common intervention and was associated with long-term reduction in recurrent health care utilization.

Severity and Extent of Lead-Related Venous Obstruction in More Than 3000 Patients Undergoing Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background

Lead-related venous stenosis/obstruction (LRVSO) may be a major challenge in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) when device upgrade, insertion of central lines, or creation of an arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis is indicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent and severity of LRVSO.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3002 venograms from patients awaiting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to assess the occurrence, severity, and extent of LRVSO.

Results

Mild LRVSO occurred in 19.9%, moderate in 20.7%, severe in 19.9% and total venous occlusion in 22.5% of the patients. Moderate/severe stenosis or total occlusion of the subclavian and brachiocephalic veins was found in 38.2% and 22.5% of the patients, respectively. LRSVO was not detected in 16.9% of the patients. Moderate and severe superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction and total SVC occlusion were rare (0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Lead insertion on the left side of the chest contributed to an increased risk of LRVSO compared to right-sided implantation. Major thoracic veins on the opposite side may be narrowed in varying degrees.

Conclusion

A total of 60% of the patients with pacemaker or high-voltage leads have an advanced form of LRVSO. Any attempt to insert new pacing leads, central lines, venous ports, or catheters for hemodialysis, or to create dialysis fistula on the same side as the existing lead should be preceded by venography. Furthermore, venography may provide useful information, if it is planned to implant the lead or the catheter on the opposite side of the chest.

Risk Factors for Lead-Related Venous Obstruction: A Study of 2909 Candidates for Lead Extraction

Background: our knowledge of lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (LRVSO) remains limited and there is still controversy regarding the risk factors for LRVSO. Venography is mandatory before transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: we performed a retrospective analysis of venograms in 2909 patients (39.43% females, average age 66.90 years) who underwent TLE between 2008 and 2021 at high-volume centers. Results: the severity of LRVSO was likely to be dependent on the number of leads in the system (OR = 1.345; p = 0.003), the number of abandoned leads (OR = 1.965; p < 0.001), the presence of coronary sinus leads (OR = 1.184; p = 0.056), male gender (OR = 1.349; p = 0.003) and patient age at first CIED implantation (OR = 1.008; p = 0.021). The presence of permanent atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.666; p < 0.001) and right ventricular diastolic diameter (OR = 0.978; p = 0.006) showed an inverse correlation with the degree of LRVSO. The combined three-model multivariate analysis provided better prediction of LRSVO using the above-mentioned factors than the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Conclusions: the severity of LRVSO is probably dependent on the mechanical impact of the implanted/abandoned leads on the vein wall, therefore the study has demonstrated the central role of system-/procedure-related risk factors. The thrombotic mechanism may be less important, especially long after implantation, and for this reason the combined prediction model for LRVSO in this study was more effective than the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

The Influence of Lead-Related Venous Obstruction on the Complexity and Outcomes of Transvenous Lead Extraction

Background: Little is known about lead-related venous stenosis/occlusion (LRVSO), and the influence of LRVSO on the complexity and outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is debated in the literature. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of venograms from 2909 patients who underwent TLE between 2008 and 2021 at a high-volume center. Results: Advanced LRVSO was more common in elderly men with a high Charlson comorbidity index. Procedure duration, extraction of superfluous leads, occurrence of any technical difficulty, lead-to-lead binding, fracture of the lead being extracted, need to use alternative approach and lasso catheters or metal sheaths were found to be associated with LRVSO. The presence of LRVSO had no impact on the number of major complications including TLE-related tricuspid valve damage. The achievement of complete procedural or clinical success did not depend on the presence of LRVSO. Long-term mortality, in contrast to periprocedural and short-term mortality, was significantly worse in the groups with LRSVO. Conclusions: LRVSO can be considered as an additional TLE-related risk factor. The effect of LRVSO on major complications including periprocedural mortality and on short-term mortality has not been established. However, LRVSO has been associated with poor long-term survival.