Transvenous Lead Extraction of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Reimplant Strategy and Outcomes in a Single-Center Experience

• Published in: Mædica 2023-09, Vol.18 (3), p.389-394
• Main Authors: DARDARI, Mohamed, IORGULESCU, Corneliu, CINTEZA, Eliza, DEACONU, Alexandru, NASTASA, Alexandrina, VASILE, Corina Maria, VATASESCU, Radu, DOROBANTU, Maria
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1841-9038; 2069-6116
• DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2023.18.3.389

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are now widely used worldwide and the numbers are increasing exponentially. Subsequently, long-term complications have increased. Transvenous lead-extraction (TLE) is the gold standard for removing infected devices, treating systemic device-related infections including endocarditis, and removing devices for other non-infectious complications. Most patients still require device therapy after TLE for several indications, including lifesaving defibrillation or pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients. The decision to reimplant is challenging, particularly when the primary cause for device removal includes device-related infections and patients frequently are pacemaker dependent. We aim to present our strategy for reimplanting after performing TLE in 88 consecutive patients. We performed transvenous removal of 150 pacemaker and defibrillator leads, of which 74% for local or systemic infection. We report a 99.3% clinical success after TLE. Out of 88 patients who had undergone TLE and after reanalysing the device indication, 67 patients (76%) still had indication for device removal, but three of them refused to undergo reimplant and 58 were re-implanted. Of the re-implanted patients, 58.6% were implanted on the contra-lateral side, 38% on the ipsilateral side and two patients who had been previously implanted with ICD were reimplanted with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). Up to 34.4% of patients were re-implanted during the same TLE procedure, which was performed for device up-grade in patients with venous occlusion, 24% were implanted during the same hospital admission for TLE but not during TLE, and 41.3% were discharged and reimplanted afterwards. With this strategy for reimplantation, we report no re-infections and no device-removal-related arrhythmic major events or deaths during one-year follow-up. In conclusion, most patients still require device therapy after TLE. In patients with previous infection of the device, the reimplantation strategy should be carefully analyzed to prevent infection relapse and limit the consequences of the absence of the device.