Efficacy and Safety of Transvenous Lead Extraction at the Time of Upgrade from Pacemakers to Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.
device upgrade
prophylaxis of lead abandonment
restoration of venous access
transvenous lead extraction
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 12 2022
24 12 2022
Historique:
received:
01
11
2022
revised:
21
12
2022
accepted:
22
12
2022
entrez:
8
1
2023
pubmed:
9
1
2023
medline:
11
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Upgrading from pacemakers to ICDs and CRTs is a difficult procedure, and often, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is necessary for venous access. TLE is considered riskier in patients with multiple diseases. We aimed to assess the complexity, risk, and outcome of TLE among CRT and ICD candidates. We analyzed clinical data from 2408 patients undergoing TLE between 2006 and 2021. There were 138 patients upgraded to CRT-D, 33 patients upgraded to CRT-P and 89 individuals upgraded to ICD versus 2148 patients undergoing TLE for other non-infectious indications. The need for an upgrade was the leading indication for TLE in only 36-66% of patients. In 42.0-57.6% of patients, the upgrade procedure could be successfully done only after reestablishing access to the occluded vein. All leads were extracted in 68.1-76.4% of patients, functional leads were retained in 20.2-31.9%, non-functional leads were left in place in 0.0-1.1%, and non-functional superfluous leads were extracted in 3.6-8.4%. The long-term survival rate of patients in the CRT-upgrade group was lower (63.8%) than in the non-upgrade group (75.2%). Upgrading a patient from an existing pacemaker to an ICD/CRT is feasible in 100% of cases, provided that TLE is performed for venous access. Major complications of TLE at the time of device upgrade are rare and, if present do not result in death.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Upgrading from pacemakers to ICDs and CRTs is a difficult procedure, and often, transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is necessary for venous access. TLE is considered riskier in patients with multiple diseases. We aimed to assess the complexity, risk, and outcome of TLE among CRT and ICD candidates.
METHODS
We analyzed clinical data from 2408 patients undergoing TLE between 2006 and 2021. There were 138 patients upgraded to CRT-D, 33 patients upgraded to CRT-P and 89 individuals upgraded to ICD versus 2148 patients undergoing TLE for other non-infectious indications.
RESULTS
The need for an upgrade was the leading indication for TLE in only 36-66% of patients. In 42.0-57.6% of patients, the upgrade procedure could be successfully done only after reestablishing access to the occluded vein. All leads were extracted in 68.1-76.4% of patients, functional leads were retained in 20.2-31.9%, non-functional leads were left in place in 0.0-1.1%, and non-functional superfluous leads were extracted in 3.6-8.4%. The long-term survival rate of patients in the CRT-upgrade group was lower (63.8%) than in the non-upgrade group (75.2%).
CONCLUSIONS
Upgrading a patient from an existing pacemaker to an ICD/CRT is feasible in 100% of cases, provided that TLE is performed for venous access. Major complications of TLE at the time of device upgrade are rare and, if present do not result in death.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36612613
pii: ijerph20010291
doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010291
pmc: PMC9819767
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Lead
2P299V784P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Dec 18;2018:8796704
pubmed: 30662917
PLoS One. 2021 May 14;16(5):e0251829
pubmed: 33989335
J Clin Med. 2020 Jan 28;9(2):
pubmed: 32013032
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Dec;14(12):e503-e551
pubmed: 28919379
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 03;10(21):
pubmed: 34768676
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018 Feb;29(2):316-321
pubmed: 29131449
Europace. 2017 Dec 01;19(12):2042-2046
pubmed: 28430911
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Jun;15(6):855-859
pubmed: 29325975
Europace. 2018 Aug 1;20(8):1324-1333
pubmed: 29016781
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 03;18(19):
pubmed: 34639716
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Jan;3(1):1-9
pubmed: 29759687
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 13;18(18):
pubmed: 34574558
Echocardiography. 2020 Apr;37(4):601-611
pubmed: 32154950
Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2013;9(1):16-21
pubmed: 24570688
Europace. 2014 Jan;16(1):81-7
pubmed: 23794614
Europace. 2019 Apr 1;21(4):645-654
pubmed: 30624715
Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2015 Jul 29;15(2):118-20
pubmed: 26937097
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004 Nov;15(11):1328-30
pubmed: 15574187
Europace. 2020 Sep 1;22(9):1401-1408
pubmed: 32681177
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2001 Dec;24(12):1721-4
pubmed: 11817804
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;42(7):1006-1017
pubmed: 31046136
J Clin Med. 2020 May 08;9(5):
pubmed: 32397115
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013 Dec;36(12):1503-11
pubmed: 23919508
Heart Rhythm. 2009 Jul;6(7):1085-104
pubmed: 19560098
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2021 Aug 05;17:445-459
pubmed: 34385818
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Dec;42(12):1517-1523
pubmed: 31531868
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Feb;4(2):201-208
pubmed: 29749938
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007 Feb;88(2):128-33
pubmed: 17384828
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 28;18(17):
pubmed: 34501689
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018 Nov;111(5):686-696
pubmed: 30281686
Br Heart J. 1992 Jan;67(1):57-64
pubmed: 1739528
Europace. 2018 Jul 1;20(7):1217
pubmed: 29566158
Heart. 2000 Jun;83(6):E12
pubmed: 10814646
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2000 Oct;4(3):493-9
pubmed: 11046188
Circulation. 2017 Oct 10;136(15):1387-1395
pubmed: 28830879
Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2010 Sep;21(3):196-9
pubmed: 20730439
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005 Jul;28(7):661-6
pubmed: 16008801