Fu, Haixia

AbstractIntroductionThe outcomes of repeated cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction have not been well studied. We sought to determine the indications, outcomes, and safety of repeated lead extraction procedures.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted using data from two medical centers, including 38 patients who had undergone two or more lead extraction procedures compared to 439 patients who had a single procedure. The electronic medical records and procedural databases were reviewed to determine the indications, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. The outcomes of the first procedure were compared to the outcomes of subsequent procedures.ResultsThe 5‐year cumulative probability of a repeated extraction procedure was 11% (95% confidence interval, 7%–15%). In 439 patients who underwent single lead extractions, 72% had device and lead related infections as the procedure indication compared to 39% for 38 patients who underwent repeated extraction (P < 0.001). The mean duration from device reimplant to repeated extraction procedures was 63 ± 48 months. Ninety‐eight percent of the leads were removed completely in repeated procedures, similar to the 95% success rate of the first procedure (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in major complication rate in the first or repeated extractions (2.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.79).ConclusionsRepeated transvenous lead extraction is not uncommon. It had a high success rate comparable to that of the initial procedure and was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be achieved via a transvenous or epicardial route. A surgically implanted epicardial LV (eLV) lead is used after a standard transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation has failed. However, studies of clinical outcomes in patients with eLV leads and comparisons of outcome between tLV and eLV‐CRT are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare clinical response between tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT, as well as to understand the differences within the eLV‐CRT population.MethodsForty‐four patients received eLV‐CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV‐CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV‐CRT during the same time period.ResultsDuring a mean follow‐up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV‐CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV‐CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV‐CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09).ConclusionIn this case‐matched two‐centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV‐CRT implantation. Use of eLV‐CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.