Transvenous lead extraction after heart transplantation: How to avoid abandoned lead fragments.
Adult
Defibrillators, Implantable
/ adverse effects
Device Removal
/ adverse effects
Elective Surgical Procedures
Female
Foreign Bodies
/ etiology
Heart Failure
/ surgery
Heart Transplantation
Humans
Immunosuppressive Agents
/ therapeutic use
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Pacemaker, Artificial
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis-Related Infections
/ etiology
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
heart failure
heart transplantation
laser lead extraction
lead extraction
lead removal
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
received:
29
10
2019
revised:
06
02
2020
accepted:
11
02
2020
pubmed:
14
2
2020
medline:
3
2
2021
entrez:
14
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many patients awaiting heart transplantation (HTX) have a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). Lead removal is often still a part of the HTX procedure. Abandoned lead fragments carry a risk for infections and prohibit magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging. This study evaluated the concept of an elective lead management algorithm after HTX. Between 2009 and 2018, 102 consecutive patients with previously implanted CIED underwent HTX. Lead removal by manual traction during HTX was performed in 74 patients until December 2014. Afterward, treatment strategy was changed and 28 patients received elective lead extraction procedures in a hybrid operating room (OR) using specialized extraction tools. Total of 74 patients with 157 leads underwent lead extraction by manual traction during HTX. The mean lead age was 32.3 ± 38.7 months. Postoperative X-ray revealed abandoned intravascular lead fragments in 31(41.9%) patients, resulting in a complete lead extraction rate of only 58.1%. The high rate of unsuccessful lead extractions led to the change in the extraction strategy in 2015. Since then, HTX was performed in 28 CIED patients. In those patients, 64 leads with a mean lead age of 53.8 ± 42.8 months were treated in an elective lead extraction procedure. No major or minor complications occurred during lead extraction. All leads could be removed completely, resulting in a procedural success rate of 100%. Our results demonstrate that chronically implanted leads should be removed in an elective procedure, using appropriate extraction tools. This enables complete lead extraction, which reduces the infection risk in this patient population with the necessity for permanent immunosuppressive therapy and allows further MRI surveillance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Many patients awaiting heart transplantation (HTX) have a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). Lead removal is often still a part of the HTX procedure. Abandoned lead fragments carry a risk for infections and prohibit magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging. This study evaluated the concept of an elective lead management algorithm after HTX.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Between 2009 and 2018, 102 consecutive patients with previously implanted CIED underwent HTX. Lead removal by manual traction during HTX was performed in 74 patients until December 2014. Afterward, treatment strategy was changed and 28 patients received elective lead extraction procedures in a hybrid operating room (OR) using specialized extraction tools. Total of 74 patients with 157 leads underwent lead extraction by manual traction during HTX. The mean lead age was 32.3 ± 38.7 months. Postoperative X-ray revealed abandoned intravascular lead fragments in 31(41.9%) patients, resulting in a complete lead extraction rate of only 58.1%. The high rate of unsuccessful lead extractions led to the change in the extraction strategy in 2015. Since then, HTX was performed in 28 CIED patients. In those patients, 64 leads with a mean lead age of 53.8 ± 42.8 months were treated in an elective lead extraction procedure. No major or minor complications occurred during lead extraction. All leads could be removed completely, resulting in a procedural success rate of 100%.
CONCLUSION
Our results demonstrate that chronically implanted leads should be removed in an elective procedure, using appropriate extraction tools. This enables complete lead extraction, which reduces the infection risk in this patient population with the necessity for permanent immunosuppressive therapy and allows further MRI surveillance.
Substances chimiques
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
854-859Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Zhan C, Baine WB, Sedrakyan A, Steiner C. Cardiac device implantation in the United States from 1997 through 2004: a population-based analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(suppl 1):13-19.
Freeman JV, Masoudi FA. Effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure. Heart Fail Clin. 2013;9(1):59-77.
Ezekowitz JA, Rowe BH, Dryden DM, et al. Systematic review: implantable cardioverter defibrillators for adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):251-262.
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(27):2129-2200.
Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, et al. Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States from 1993 to 2009: increasing complexity of patients and procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1540-1545.
Klug D, Balde M, Pavin D, et al. Risk factors related to infections of implanted pacemakers and cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a large prospective study. Circulation. 2007;116(12):1349-1355.
Rizwan Sohail M, Henrikson CA, Jo Braid-Forbes M, Forbes KF, Lerner DJ. Increased long-term mortality in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38(2):231-239.
Wu YL, Ye Q, Eytan DF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging investigation of macrophages in acute cardiac allograft rejection after heart transplantation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(6):965-973.
Krieghoff C, Barten MJ, Hildebrand L, et al. Assessment of sub-clinical acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation: comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and endomyocardial biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2360-2371.
Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL, et al. HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(12):e503-e551. 2017.
Sadek MM, Goldstein W, Epstein AE, Schaller RD. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead extraction: evidence, techniques, results, and future directions. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2016;31(1):23-28.
Wazni O, Epstein LM, Carrillo RG, et al. Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: the LExICon study: an observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(6):579-586.
Pecha S, Linder M, Gosau N, et al. Lead extraction with high frequency laser sheaths: a single-centre experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;51(5):902-905.
Kusmierski K, Przybylski A, Oreziak A, Sobieszczanska-Malek M, Kolsut P, Rozanski J. Post heart transplant extraction of the abandoned fragments of pacing and defibrillation leads: proposed management algorithm. Kardiol Pol. 2013;71(2):159-163.
Marijon E, Boveda S, De Guillebon M, et al. Contributions of advanced techniques to the success and safety of transvenous leads extraction. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009;32(suppl 1):S38-S41.
Epstein LM, Love CJ, Wilkoff BL, et al. Superior vena cava defibrillator coils make transvenous lead extraction more challenging and riskier. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(9):987-989.
Bohm A, Pinter A, Duray G, et al. Complications due to abandoned noninfected pacemaker leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2001;24(12):1721-1724.
Dieuzaide P, Savon N, Chalvidan T, LeTallec L, DeHaro JC, Djiane P. A complication of pacemaker lead extraction: paradoxical embolism of a lead fragment in a leg artery. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998;21(12):2699-2700.
Durante-Mangoni E, Vitrone M, Mattucci I, Caprioli V, Maiello C. Infection of retained defibrillator lead fragment after heart transplant. Clin Pract. 2017;7(2):857.
Kolodzinska K, Kutarski A, Grabowski M, Jarzyna I, Malecka B, Opolski G. Abrasions of the outer silicone insulation of endocardial leads in their intracardiac part: a new mechanism of lead-dependent endocarditis. Europace. 2012;14(6):903-910.
Bongiorni MG, Burri H, Deharo JC, et al. 2018 EHRA expert consensus statement on lead extraction: recommendations on definitions, endpoints, research trial design, and data collection requirements for clinical scientific studies and registries: endorsed by APHRS/HRS/LAHRS. Europace. 2018;20(7):1217.
Starck CT, Steffel J, Caliskan E, et al. Clinical performance of a new bidirectional rotational mechanical lead extraction sheath. Europace. 2016;18(2):253-256.