The management of cardiac implantable electronic device lead perforations: a multicentre study.

AIMS: Lead perforation is a rare, well-known complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implants, whose management is mostly not evidence-based. Main management strategies include conservative approach based on clinical and lead function follow-up vs. routine invasive lead revision approach. This study compared the complications of both strategies by composite endpoint, including recurrent perforation-related symptoms, recurrent pericardial effusion (PEf), lead dysfunction, and device infection during 12 month follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multicentre retrospective analysis, inquiring data from imaging studies, device interrogation, pericardiocentesis, and clinical charts of patients with suspected perforating leads between 2007 and 2014 in five hospitals. All cases were reviewed by electrophysiologist and defined as definite perforations by suggestive symptoms along with lead perforation on imaging, bloody PEf on pericardiocentesis shortly after implant, or right ventricular (RV) lead non-capture along with diaphragmatic stimulation upon bipolar pacing. Clinical outcomes associated with both management approaches were compared, with respect to the composite endpoint. The study included 48 definitive perforation cases: 22 managed conservatively and 26 via lead revision. Conservative management was associated with an increased composite endpoint compared with lead revision (8/22 vs. 1/26; P = 0.007). The dominant complication among the conservative cohort was appearance of cardiac tamponade during follow-up; 5/6 occurring in cases which presented with no or only mild PEf and were treated by antiplatelets/coagulants during or shortly after CIED implantation. CONCLUSION: A conservative management of CIED lead perforation is associated with increased complications compared with early lead revision. Lead revision may be the preferred management particularly in patients receiving antiplatelets/coagulants.

Delaying laparoscopic surgery in pregnant patients with an equivocal acute appendicitis: a step-wise approach does not affect maternal or fetal safety.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely diagnoses of acute appendicitis (AA) during pregnancy avoids maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. We present our experience of using an initial transabdominal ultrasound (US) performed at presentation to diagnose AA in pregnant patients as well as the value of a delayed repeat study in those who remain equivocal. We explore the sensitivity and specificity of this algorithm as well as the maternal and fetal safety of this approach. METHODS: Of the 225 patients identified within the study period who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, 216 met the inclusion criteria and were retrospectively analyzed. If the US performed on presentation revealed AA, surgery was performed. Patients with a non-diagnostic US were admitted with surgery performed if there was clinical and/or biochemical deterioration. Patients who remained equivocal underwent a repeat delayed study. The results of the initial versus delayed studies were compared. Maternal and fetal complications were recorded and contrasted. RESULTS: Of the 216 patients included, 164 (75.9%) had AA, 14 (6.5%) had complicated AA and 38 (17.6%) had a normal appendix. Initial US was diagnostic for 125/216 (57.9%) of patients and 19/34 (55.8%) of patients who underwent a delayed repeat study. The remaining patients underwent empirical surgery. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US for the cohort was 79.2% and 92.1%, respectively. There was no difference in proxies of maternal or fetal safety between the groups. CONCLUSION: US is a useful tool for diagnosing AA in pregnancy. In this cohort, performing a delayed repeat US during a period of observation in those patients who remained otherwise equivocal increased the diagnostic yield of the US. Delaying surgery in this specific group of patients does not affect maternal or fetal safety.