Unrecognized venous injuries after cardiac implantable electronic device transvenous lead extraction

Published:November 12, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.11.008

      Background

      The major complication rate of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is estimated to be 1%–2%. Laceration of the central veins can be fatal.

      Objectives

      To define the incidence and extent of venous injuries on a microscopic level after TLE and compare these data with those of clinically documented events of venous laceration.

      Methods

      We studied all patients who underwent TLE at our tertiary center within 30 months via a variety of techniques. Extracted leads and tissue around them were fixed in formalin. Pathologic examination was standardized to examine the leads identifying the areas covered by tissue cuffs along the length of the lead. The cuffs were removed and sectioned transversely to their longitudinal axis. Microscopic examination was performed using hematoxylin and eosin stains and Movat stains to identify the presence of vein tissue.

      Results

      In all, 861 leads (585 pacemaker and 272 defibrillator leads) were extracted from 461 patients (median age 63 years, standard deviation 15 years), with an average of 1.9 leads per patient and a median lead age of 2546 days. On microscopic review, 80 leads (9.3%) in 72 of 461 patients (15.6%) showed segments of vein, most of which were transmural (venous tissue including adventitia). Despite this finding, only 5 catastrophic complications (1.1%) occurred that required emergent surgical intervention. Risk factors for venous injury included implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead, age of lead, and the use of laser sheath.

      Conclusions

      Microscopic venous injuries during lead extraction are common but often not recognized clinically.

      Graphical abstract

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to Heart Rhythm
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Greenspon A.J.
        • Patel J.D.
        • Lau E.
        • Ochoa J.A.
        • Frisch D.R.
        • Ho R.T.
        • Pavri B.B.
        • Kurtz S.M.
        Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the united states from 1993 to 2009: increasing complexity of patients and procedures.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60: 1540-1545
        • Tarakji K.G.
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        Management of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: the challenges of understanding the scope of the problem and its associated mortality.
        Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2013; 11: 607-616
        • Hauser R.G.
        The growing mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45: 2022-2025
        • Voigt A.
        • Shalaby A.
        • Saba S.
        Continued rise in rates of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections in the united states: temporal trends and causative insights.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010; 33: 414-419
        • Liu J.
        • Brumberg G.
        • Rattan R.
        • Jain S.
        • Saba S.
        Class I recall of defibrillator leads: a comparison of the sprint fidelis and riata families.
        Heart Rhythm. 2012; 9: 1251-1255
        • Wazni O.
        • Epstein L.M.
        • Carrillo R.G.
        • et al.
        Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: The lexicon study: an observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55: 579-586
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • Love C.J.
        • Byrd C.L.
        • Bongiorni M.G.
        • Carrillo R.G.
        • Crossley 3rd, G.H.
        • Epstein L.M.
        • Friedman R.A.
        • Kennergren C.E.
        • Mitkowski P.
        • Schaerf R.H.
        • Wazni O.M.
        Heart Rhythm Society; American Heart Association. Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: This document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA).
        Heart Rhythm. 2009; 6: 1085-1104
        • Brunner M.P.
        • Cronin E.M.
        • Duarte V.E.
        • et al.
        Clinical predictors of adverse patient outcomes in an experience of more than 5000 chronic endovascular pacemaker and defibrillator lead extractions.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11: 799-805
        • Brunner M.P.
        • Cronin E.M.
        • Wazni O.
        • Baranowski B.
        • Saliba W.I.
        • Sabik J.F.
        • Lindsay B.D.
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • Tarakji K.G.
        Outcomes of patients requiring emergent surgical or endovascular intervention for catastrophic complications during transvenous lead extraction.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11: 419-425
        • Rettig G.
        • Doenecke P.
        • Sen S.
        • Volkmer I.
        • Bette L.
        Complications with retained transvenous pacemaker electrodes.
        Am Heart J. 1979; 98: 587-594
        • Madigan N.P.
        • Curtis J.J.
        • Sanfelippo J.F.
        • Murphy T.J.
        Difficulty of extraction of chronically implanted tined ventricular endocardial leads.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984; 3: 724-731
        • Huang T.Y.
        • Baba N.
        Cardiac pathology of transvenous pacemakers.
        Am Heart J. 1972; 83: 469-474
        • Novak M.
        • Dvorak P.
        • Kamaryt P.
        • Slana B.
        • Lipoldova J.
        Autopsy and clinical context in deceased patients with implanted pacemakers and defibrillators: intracardiac findings near their leads and electrodes.
        Europace. 2009; 11: 1510-1516
        • Bongiorni M.G.
        • Di Cori A.
        • Segreti L.
        • Zucchelli G.
        • Viani S.
        • Paperini L.
        • Menichetti F.
        • Coluccia G.
        • Soldati E.
        Where is the future of cardiac lead extraction heading?.
        Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2016; 14: 1197-1203
        • Segreti L.
        • Di Cori A.
        • Soldati E.
        • Zucchelli G.
        • Viani S.
        • Paperini L.
        • De Lucia R.
        • Coluccia G.
        • Valsecchi S.
        • Bongiorni M.G.
        Major predictors of fibrous adherences in transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11: 2196-2201
        • Wazni O.
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction.
        Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016; 13: 221-229
        • DeSimone C.V.
        • Noheria A.
        • Lachman N.
        • Edwards W.D.
        • Gami A.S.
        • Maleszewski J.J.
        • Friedman P.A.
        • Munger T.M.
        • Hammill S.C.
        • Packer D.L.
        • Asirvatham S.J.
        Myocardium of the superior vena cava, coronary sinus, vein of Marshall, and the pulmonary vein ostia: gross anatomic studies in 620 hearts.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012; 23: 1304-1309
        • Epstein L.M.
        • Love C.J.
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • et al.
        Superior vena cava defibrillator coils make transvenous lead extraction more challenging and riskier.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61: 987-989
        • Baddour L.M.
        • Epstein A.E.
        • Erickson C.C.
        • et al.
        Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2010; 121: 458-477
        • Maytin M.
        • Epstein L.M.
        • Henrikson C.A.
        Lead extraction is preferred for lead revisions and system upgrades: when less is more.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010; 3 (discussion 424): 413-424
        • Hussein A.A.
        • Tarakji K.G.
        • Martin D.O.
        • et al.
        Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Added complexity and suboptimal outcomes with previously abandoned leads.
        JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2016; 3: 1-9