Transvenous extraction of permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads: Reduced procedural complexity and higher procedural success rates in patients with infective versus noninfective indications.

INTRODUCTION: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is critical in the long-term management of patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of the study is to evaluate the outcomes of TLE and to investigate the impact of infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data of patients undergoing extraction of permanent pacemaker and defibrillator leads during October 2014-September 2019 were prospectively analyzed. Overall, 242 consecutive patients (aged 71.0 ± 14.0 years, 31.4% female), underwent an equal number of TLE operations for the removal of 516 leads. Infection was the commonest indication (n = 201, 83.1%). Mean implant-to-extraction duration was 7.6 ± 5.4 years. Complete procedural success was recorded in 96.1%, and clinical procedural success was achieved in 97.1% of attempted lead extractions. Major complications occurred in two (0.8%) and minor complications in seven (2.9%) patients. Leads were removed exclusively by using locking stylets in 65.7% of the cases. In the subgroup of noninfective patients, advanced extraction tools were more frequently required compared to patients with CIED infections, to extract leads (success only with locking stylet: 55.8% vs. 67.8%, p = .032). In addition, patients without infection demonstrated lower complete procedural success rates (90.7% vs. 97.2%, p = .004), higher major complication rates (2.4% vs. 0.5%, p = .31) and longer procedural times (136 ± 13 vs. 111 ± 15 min, p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate high procedural efficacy and safety and indicate that in patients with noninfective indications, the procedure is more demanding, thus supporting the hypothesis that leads infection dissolves and/or prohibits the formation of fibrotic adherences.

Percutaneous lead extraction and repositioning: An effective and safe therapeutic strategy for early ventricular lead perforation with dislocation both inside and outside the pericardial sac following a cardiac device implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac perforation of the right ventricle associated with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads' implantation is uncommon, albeit potentially life-threatening, complication. The aim of this study is to further identify the optimal therapeutic strategy, especially when lead dislocation has occurred outside the pericardial sac. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population included 10 consecutive patients (six female, mean age: 66.5 years old) diagnosed with early ventricular lead perforation following a pacemaker or ICD implantation, with significant protrusion inside the pericardial sac (n = 2) or migration of the lead at the pleural space ( n = 3), the diaphragm ( n = 1), or the abdominal cavity ( n = 4), during the period 2013-2017. All patients were symptomatic; however, individuals presenting with hemodynamic instability were excluded. The outcome of the percutaneous therapeutic approach was retrospectively assessed. All patients underwent a successful removal of the perforating lead percutaneously at the electrophysiology lab, by direct traction, and repositioning in another location of the right ventricle. The operation was performed by a multidisciplinary team, under continuous hemodynamic and transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring and cardiac surgical backup. The periprocedural period was uneventful. Subjects were followed up for at least 1 year. Interestingly, all patients developed a type of postcardiac injury syndrome, successfully treated with a 3-month regimen of ibuprofen and colchicine. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous traction and repositioning of the perforating ventricular lead are effective, safe, and less invasive compared with the thoracotomy method in hemodynamically stable patients when dislocation has occurred outside the pericardial sac provided that there is no visceral organs injury.