Acute transvenous pacemaker lead thrombosis early after implantation: A rare clinical scenario.

Symptomatic thrombus formation due to a permanent pacemaker (PM) lead is a rare complication. It could be associated with serious outcome and should be suspected in patients who present with unexplained right heart failure, dyspnea, or syncope following dual-chamber PM implantation. A timely decision to perform an echocardiographic examination, followed by medical, thrombolytic, or surgical treatment can be necessary. We describe the case of an 84-year-old man who presented with syncope and hypotension a few days after PM implantation. A transesophageal echocardiography revealed a mobile mass in the right atrium attached to the pacemaker lead. Intravenous heparin allowed a complete resolution of the thrombus.

Superior vena cava tear during transvenous lead extraction: Medical management in hemodynamically stable patients.

INTRODUCTION: Superior vena cava (SVC) tear is the most lethal complication during transvenous lead extraction (TLE) with a mortality rate as high as 50%. Treatment involves aggressive attempts to maintain cardiac output and immediate sternotomy to localize and repair the vascular tear. Occlusion balloons have been developed to provisionally occlude the lacerated SVC and to provide hemodynamic stability allowing time for surgery. In case of mediastinal hematoma without hemodynamic instability, the strategy remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We describe two cases of SVC tear during TLE. The first case was a 60-year-old man who presented with a right ventricular single-chamber defibrillator lead fracture and innominate vein stenosis. The RV lead was removed using a laser sheath causing a mediastinal hematoma with no active bleeding during surgical exploration few hours later. The second case was a 28-year-old man that presented with a right atrial (RA) lead fracture and RV lead insulation failure in a dual-chamber defibrillator (ICD). CONCLUSION: Both the RA and RV leads were removed with mechanical sheaths, and a mediastinal hematoma was medically managed.

Survival, ventricular arrhythmia, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator usefulness in toxic cardiomyopathy due to substance abuse.

BACKGROUND: Toxic dilated cardiomyopathy (T-DCM) due to substance abuse is now recognized as a potential cause of severe left ventricular dysfunction. The burden of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and the role of a prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are not well documented in this population. We aim to assess the usefulness of ICD implantation in a T-DCM cohort. METHODS: Patients younger than 65 years with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% followed at a tertiary center heart failure (HF) clinic between January 2003 and August 2019 were screened for inclusion. The diagnosis of T-DCM was confirmed after excluding other etiologies, and substance abuse was established according to the DSM-5 criteria. The composite primary endpoints were arrhythmic syncope, sudden cardiac death (SCD), or death of unknown cause. The secondary endpoints were the occurrence of sustained VA and/or appropriate therapies in ICD carriers. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were identified, and an ICD was implanted in 19 (50%) of these patients, only one for secondary prevention. The primary outcome was similar between the two groups (ICD vs. non-ICD; p = 1.00). After a mean follow-up of 33 ± 36 months, only two VA episodes were reported in the ICD group. Three patients received inappropriate ICD therapies. One ICD implantation was complicated with cardiac tamponade. Twenty-three patients (61%) had an LVEF ≥35% at 12 months. CONCLUSION: VA are infrequent in the T-DCM population. The prophylactic ICD benefit was not observed in our cohort. The ideal timing for potential prophylactic ICD implantation in this population needs further studies.

Lead extraction of an unintentional pacemaker lead implantation in the left ventricle from the left subclavian artery.

INTRODUCTION: Inadvertent implantation from the subclavian/axillary arteries is uncommon and has been rarely reported. Complications are frequent, mainly driven by thromboembolic events. Lead extraction, depending on the dwell time may be challenging and associated with thromboembolic events Case Report: We report the case of an 87-year-old man who had involuntarily pacemaker lead implanted into the left ventricle through the left subclavian artery. An extraction procedure was performed with surgical dissection to the artery and simple traction of the probe without complication. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous lead extraction using surgical dissection is a therapeutic option for less than one year old left ventricle inadvertent lead implantation.

Experience of Combined Procedure during Percutaneous LAA Closure.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to long-term OAC. Combined strategy with percutaneous LAAC at the same time of other cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedures has emerged as an alternative to a staged strategy. AIM: To describe our experience with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ devices. METHODS: All patients with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ (WN) devices performed from 2016 to 2021 were included. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of periprocedural complications and adverse events during the follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint included strokes, systemic embolisms, major bleeding and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: From 2016, among 160 patients who underwent LAAC using WN devices, 19 underwent a combined strategy: 7 transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEMVR) (37%), 6 typical atrial flutter ablation (31%), 2 leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation (10%) and 4 AF ablation (22%). The WN device was successfully implanted in 98% and 100% of cases for single and combined LAAC procedures, respectively (p = 0.63). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 25/75 3/24). Device-related complications occurred in 6 out of 141 patients (4%) who underwent single LAAC and in no (0/19) patient in the combined LAAC procedure (p = ns). The procedural-related complications did not differ significantly between groups (5% vs. 10%, respectively, in the single and combined group, p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Combined procedure using the Watchman™ devices and one other structural or electrophysiological procedure appears safe and effective. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.