Gupta, Anshul R

ABSTRACT Background Patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis have an increased risk of pacemaker‐related complications due to limited vascular access and increased susceptibility to infection. Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) may mitigate these risks compared with conventional transvenous pacemakers (TPMs), but long‐term comparative data in this population remain limited. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network, including adults (≥ 18 years) with ESRD on dialysis who underwent LPM or TPM implantation between May 2016 and December 2020. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes assessed over up to 5 years included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, device re‐intervention, device‐related complications, infection‐related hospitalization, pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy, and all‐cause mortality. Results After matching, 901 patients were included in each group with well‐balanced baseline characteristics. LPM implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of device re‐intervention compared with TPM (4.1% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.69; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups in all‐cause hospitalization (65.5% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.22), heart failure hospitalization (26.9% vs. 30.2%; p = 0.13), all‐cause mortality (37.5% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.34), device‐related complications (14.5% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.94), infection‐related hospitalization (1.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.35), or pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy (9.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.66). Conclusion In a large, propensity‐matched cohort of patients with ESRD on dialysis, LPMs were associated with fewer device re‐interventions and comparable long‐term clinical outcomes compared with TPMs.

AbstractBackgroundComplications associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices may necessitate device and lead removal. An open approach to removal may be electively chosen in cases with high risk of complications or those requiring additional concomitant cardiac surgery. This study aimed to investigate outcomes of patients who underwent elective open lead extractions (OLE) at two large tertiary care centers.MethodsThe records of 29 patients undergoing elective OLE were analyzed through retrospective chart review.Results69 total leads were extracted from 29 patients (77% completely, 23% partially). The average age of the oldest leads was 13.3 ± 11.3 years. Infective endocarditis with severe valvular insufficiency requiring valvular intervention (41%)—an infectious etiology, and tricuspid valve intervention to correct RV lead‐related severe TR (38%)—a noninfectious etiology, were the most common reasons for OLE. 38% of the patients had additional co‐primary or secondary indications for open extraction, such as CABG and pericardiectomies. The rate of major complications and procedural failure was 3% each (1/29). 30‐day survival was 100%, and 1‐year survival was 92%. The average length of hospital stay was 15 days and higher among those undergoing OLE for infectious indications.ConclusionOpen lead extractions offered a similar clinical success rate (97%) to transvenous extractions in this cohort and may be a viable alternative for those necessitating valvular intervention or when the risk of complications from TLE is considered very high.