Transvenous lead extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A comprehensive outcome-and risk factor analysis
- PMID: 37461858
- DOI: 10.1111/pace.14763
Transvenous lead extraction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A comprehensive outcome-and risk factor analysis
Abstract
Background: Device complications, such as infection or lead dysfunction necessitating transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are continuously rising amongst patients with transvenous implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).
Objectives: Aim of this study was to characterize the procedural outcome and risk-factors of patients with indwelling 1- and 2-chamber ICD undergoing TLE.
Methods: We conducted a subgroup analysis of all ICD patients in the GALLERY (GermAn Laser Lead Extraction RegistrY) database. Predictors for procedural failure and all-cause mortality were assessed.
Results: We identified 842 patients with an ICD undergoing TLE with the mean age of 62.8 ± 13.8 years. A total number of 1610 leads were treated with lead dysfunction (48.5%) as leading indication for extraction, followed by device-related infection (45.4%). Lead-per-patient ratio was 1.91 ± 0.88 and 60.0% of patients had dual-coil defibrillator leads. Additional extraction tools, such as mechanical rotating dilator sheaths and snares were utilized in 6.5% of cases. Overall procedural complications occurred in 4.3% with 2.0% major complications and a procedure-related mortality of 0.8%. Clinical success rate was 97.9%. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 3.4%, with sepsis being the leading cause for mortality. Multivariate analysis revealed lead-age ≥10 years (OR:5.82, 95%CI:2.1-16.6; p = .001) as independent predictor for procedural failure. Systemic infection (OR:9.57, 95%CI:2.2-42.4; p < .001) and procedural complications (OR:8.0, 95%CI:2.8-23.3; p < .001) were identified as risk factors for all-cause mortality.
Conclusions: TLE is safe and efficacious in patients with 1- and 2-chamber ICD. Although lead dysfunction is the leading indication for extraction, systemic device-related infection is the main driver of all-cause mortality for ICD patients undergoing TLE.
Keywords: CIED-complications; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD); Lead management; cardiac-device-related infections; lead dysfunction; transvenous lead extraction.
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Raatikainen MJP, Arnar DO, Merkely B, Camm AJ, Hindricks G. Access to and clinical use of cardiac implantable electronic devices and interventional electrophysiological procedures in the European Society of Cardiology Countries: 2016 Report from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace. 2016;18:iii1-iii79. doi:10.1093/europace/euw244
-
- Priori SG, Blomström-Lunqvist C, Mazzanti A, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:2793-2867. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv316
-
- McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:3599-3726. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368
-
- Ahmed FZ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Bloom H, et al. Use of healthcare claims to validate the prevention of arrhythmia device infection trial cardiac implantable electronic device infection risk score. EP Europace. 2021;23:1446-1455. doi:10.1093/europace/euab028
-
- Ludwig S, Theis C, Brown B,itthohn A, Lux W, Goette A. Incidence and costs of cardiac device infections: retrospective analysis using German health claims data. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7:483-492. doi:10.2217/cer-2017-0080
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical