1255Comprehensive analysis of pacemaker patients with and without abandoned leads undergoing transvenous lead extraction: A GALLERY subgroup analysis

OnBehalf

GALLERY investigators

Background

The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated complications such as infection, lead dysfunction or thrombotic events is continuously rising and thus making transvenous lead extraction (TLE) an ever more needed procedure in clinical practice today. Patients with abandoned leads represent a special cohort with a potentially higher susceptibility to CIED-related infections and vascular complications. Moreover, according to literature abandoned leads seem to be associated with more procedural complications and mortality during TLE. 

Aim

 

The aim of this study was to provide an insight on safety, procedural outcome and risk prediction on pacemaker patients with abandoned leads undergoing TLE from the largest national laser-sheath registry to date.

Methods + Results:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the GALLERY database, which collected 2533 patients undergoing TLE in Germany between 2013 and 2017. Out of 903 pacemaker patients, who underwent TLE, 226 patients (25.0%) with abandoned leads were identified. Those patients had a higher number of leads per patient (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3; ns) and longer lead dwell-times (168.0 ± 89.7 vs. 123.0 ± 69.2 months; p < 0.0001) compared to pacemaker patients without abandoned leads. There were no differences in age (71.5 vs. 72.3 years; ns), body mass index (26.5 ± 4.5 vs. 26.78 ± 4.8 kg/m2; ns) or gender distribution (69.0 vs. 66.5% male; ns). Leading indication for TLE was device infection with no difference between groups (79.7 vs 77.8 %; ns). There were no differences in terms of pacemaker dependency, length of hospitalization or comorbidities. Patients with abandoned leads had longer procedure times (112.0 ± 69.0 vs. 86.4 ± 53.0 minutes; p < 0.0001) and a higher incidence of procedural complications (6.6 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.03), but there were no differences in neither procedural and clinical success rates (96.5 vs. 97.3%; ns), nor all-cause mortality (1.33 vs. 2.66%; ns). Multivariate logistic regression revealed abandoned leads (OR 2.1, CI 1.0-4.4, p = 0.04) and female gender (OR 2.4, CI 1.2-4.9, p = 0.02) as independent predictors for procedural complications. Systemic infection (OR 5.4, CI 2.0-14.8, p = 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (OR 4.0, CI 1.5-10.7, p = 0.007) were strong predictors for all-cause mortality in patients with indwelling pacemaker. Patient age > 75 years (OR 3.9, CI 2.7-5.6, p < 0.0001) and a lead dwell-time > 10 years (OR 1.6, CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.01) were identified as risk factors for an infectious cause for TLE. 

Conclusion

Abandoned leads are frequently encountered in pacemaker patients undergoing TLE and pose an important risk factor for procedural complications. Systemic CIED-related infections are the strongest driver of mortality in this patient cohort and urgently call for further improvements in early diagnosis and prevention.

Clinical trial: the effect of amitriptyline in patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome is the most common disorder diagnosed by gastroenterologists. Although several randomized-controlled trials have assessed the therapeutic role of antidepressant drugs, there is insufficient evidence to support their use.

AIM

To compare the effects of low-dose amitriptyline in the treatment of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome in a double-blind randomized-controlled trial.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients who fulfilled Rome II criteria for diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome were included in this study. Organic causes were ruled out by standard laboratory and radiological tests, and rectosigmoidoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg amitriptyline daily or placebo. Subjects were followed up for 2 months and symptoms were assessed using a questionnaire. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients completed the study. At 2 months, the amitriptyline group showed greater (P < 0.05) reduction in the incidence of loose stool and feeling of incomplete defecation. Patients receiving amitriptyline showed greater complete response, defined as loss of all symptoms, compared with those receiving placebo (68% vs. 28%, P = 0.01). Adverse effects were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Amitriptyline may be effective in the treatment of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and at low dose is well tolerated.