Zhong, Li

Background— Lead-related or valve-related endocarditis can complicate cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in patients with both CIED and prosthetic valves. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction for CIED infection in patients with prosthetic valves. Methods and Results— We retrospectively screened 794 transvenous lead extraction procedures, between September 1, 2001 and August 31, 2012, at Mayo Clinic to identify patients with prosthetic valves who underwent lead extraction for infection. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up characteristics were analyzed. In total, 51 patients (6%) met the study inclusion criteria, of whom 20 had pocket infection and 31 had lead-related or valve-related, or both, endocarditis or bloodstream infection (mean age, 67 [18] years). Staphylococcal species were the most common pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus in 20 cases (39%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci in 19 cases (37%). Overall, 127 transvenous leads (median lead age, 52 months) were extracted. Of these leads, 123 (97%) were removed completely. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9.8%; no deaths were attributable to the extraction procedure. Ninety-five percent of patients who survived had no evidence of recurrent device-related or valve-related infection. Conclusions— Transvenous lead extraction seems safe and curative in patients with CIED infection and prosthetic valves. Cure of infection can be achieved in the majority of patients with complete CIED removal and antimicrobial therapy and without valve surgery.

BackgroundWe aimed to determine the long‐term outcomes of percutaneous lead extraction and stent placement in patients with pacemaker‐induced superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome.MethodsThe study retrospectively screened patients who underwent lead extraction followed by central vein stent implantation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA), from January 2005 to December 2012, to identify the patients with pacemaker‐induced SVC syndrome. Demographic, clinical, and follow‐up characteristics of those patients were collected from electronic medical records.ResultsSix cases were identified. The mean (standard deviation) age was 56 (15) years (male, 67%). All patients had permanent dual‐chamber pacemakers, with a mean 11‐year history of pacemaker placement. The entire device system was explanted in five patients; one patient had a 21‐year‐old pacemaker lead that could not be removed. Eight stents were implanted in six patients: five patients had one stent, one patient had three. A new pacemaker system was reimplanted through the stented vein in five patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients, without any complication. Symptoms rapidly resolved in all patients after stent deployment. The mean follow‐up duration was 48 months (range, 10–100 months). Three patients remained symptom free. Reintervention with percutaneous balloon venoplasty was successful in three patients with symptom recurrence.ConclusionPercutaneous stent implantation after lead removal followed by reimplantation of leads is a feasible alternative therapy for pacemaker‐induced SVC syndrome, although some cases may require repeat intervention.

Percutaneous Lead Revision for Cardiac PerforationIntroductionCardiac perforation is an infrequent but potentially life‐threatening complication associated with placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of percutaneous lead revision in patients who had lead perforation of the myocardium after CIED placement.Methods and ResultsWe reviewed records of 1,458 patients who underwent CIED lead extraction or repositioning. Of these, 31 (2.1%) had the procedure performed for lead perforation as a complication of CIED placement. Demographic, clinical, and follow‐up characteristics of the patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) patient age was 65 (23) years. Cardiac perforation was detected within 24 hours after implantation in 9 patients, within 1 month in 17, and greater than 1 month in 5. Pericardiocentesis was performed with a pigtail drainage catheter in place before the lead revision in 17 patients (55%) who had pericardial effusion, with or without hemodynamic compromise. All culprit leads were successfully managed with percutaneous lead removal (n = 3 [10%]), new lead placement (n = 12 [38%]), or lead repositioning (n = 16 [52%]). Of the 17 patients with pericardiocentesis before the reoperation, none had tamponade develop; in contrast, 3 of the remaining 14 patients had tamponade develop and required urgent pericardiocentesis. All patients survived without requiring open chest surgery.ConclusionPercutaneous removal or repositioning of the perforating lead is feasible and appears effective. Placement of a prophylactic pericardial drain catheter may reduce the incidence of urgent pericardiocentesis during or after a procedure.