Osborn, Michael J.

AbstractObjectiveThis study sought to determine if single‐chamber operation and/or loss of rate response (RR) during elective replacement indicator (ERI) in patients with dual‐chamber pacemakers lead to increased symptom burden, healthcare utilization, and atrial fibrillation (AF).BackgroundDual‐chamber pacemakers often change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing mode and/or lose RR functionality at ERI to preserve battery. Single‐chamber pacing increases the incidence of heart failure, AF, and pacemaker syndrome suggesting these changes may be deleterious.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 700 patients was completed. Three comparisons were analyzed: Comparison 1: mode change and RR loss versus no change; Comparison 2: RR loss only versus no change; Comparison 3: mode change only versus no change (in patients with no RR programmed at baseline).ResultsIn Comparison 1, 121 (46%) patients with setting changes experienced symptoms (most often dyspnea and fatigue/exercise intolerance) versus 3 (4%) without setting changes (p < .0001). Similar results were noted in Comparisons 2 and 3 (p = .0016 and p = .0001, respectively). In Comparison 1, patients with setting change sought provider contact more than patients without setting changes (p = .0001). A significant difference was not noted in Comparison 2 or 3. Overall 14 (2%) patients were hospitalized, all of whom had setting changes.ConclusionsSetting changes at ERI including a change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing and/or loss of RR results in a significantly increased symptom burden and increased healthcare utilization.

AbstractIntroductionTo evaluate the outcomes of video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) during transvenous lead extractions (TLEs).Methods and resultsNinety‐one high‐risk patients who underwent TLE in the operating room from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2017, were included in the study. Of these, 9 patients underwent VATS during TLE. Their clinical characteristics, indications for lead extraction, and complications associated with TLE in the 9 patients who had VATS were compared with those for the 82 patients who did not have VATS. The mean (SD) age of the study patients was 61 (17) years (64.8% were male). The lead dwell time, number of leads extracted, and clinical comorbidities were similar between the 2 groups. Superior vena cava (SVC) tear occurred in 2 of the 9 patients in VATS group and in 1 of the 82 in the non‐VATS group (22.2% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.03). Of the 2 patients in the VATS group who had SVC tears, in 1 the tear was visualized immediately and there was no hemodynamic compromise. In the other patient, the SVC tear was within the pericardium; the blood pressure recovered quickly after sternotomy and repair. Both patients had complete lead extraction and survived hospitalization. The patient in the non‐VATS group who had an SVC tear had a successful repair but died of postoperative complications.ConclusionsUtilization of VATS to facilitate TLE is beneficial for early recognition of SVC tear and timely surgical repair in select high‐risk patients.

NISHIMURA, R.A. et al.: Hemodynamic and symptomatic consequences of ventricular pacing. After implantation of a ventricular demand pacemaker (VVI), occasional patients continue to have dizziness, syncope, or near syncope (“pacemaker syndrome”). To identify patients in whom VVI pacing may have deleterious effects, we compared cuff blood pressure responses to VVI pacing with blood pressure responses to atrioventricsler sequential pacing (DVI) or sinus rhythm in 50 consecutive patients. Patients with intact ventriculoatrial conduction had a much greater decrease in systolic blood pressure with VVI pacing (24 ± 11 mm Hg) than those with ventriculoatrial dissociation (−4 ± 15 mm Hg) (P<0.005). Patients who were in heart failure had a lesser decrease in blood pressure with VVI pacing than did those without failure (P<0.05); 13 of the 14 heart failure patients lacked ventriculoatrial conduction. Ten patients had symptomatic dizziness after VVI pacing; the incidence of symptoms was higher in patients with ventriculoatrial conduction (9 of 23) than in those without ventriculoatrial conduction (1 of 27) (P<0.003). We conclude that the presence of intact ventriculoatrial conduction appears to be a crucial determinent of the hemodynamic response to VVI pacing, and its presence may identify patients who are at risk for “pacemaker syndrome.”

Femoral ExtractionLaser and radiofrequency energy–assisted lead extraction has greatly facilitated this complex procedure. Although success rates are high, in some instances alternate methods of extraction are required. In this review, we discuss techniques for femoral extraction of implanted leads and retained fragments. The major tools available, including commonly used snares and delivery tools, are discussed. We briefly describe combined internal jugular and femoral venous extraction approaches, as well as complimentary utilization of more than one technique via the femoral vein. Animated and procedural sequences are included to help the reader visualize the key components of these techniques.

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.

Objective. To determine whether children with pallid breath-holding spells associated with bradycardia can be treated safely and successfully with permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods. The records of pediatric patients who had apparent breath-holding spells and associated bradycardia and were treated with permanent pacemaker implantation were reviewed. Results. Ten pediatric patients with apparent breath-holding spells associated with bradycardia were treated with a permanent ventricular demand pacemaker at the Mayo Clinic between 1985 and 1995. Patients had onset of symptoms between ages 6 days and 12 months and presented for evaluation between ages 12 months and 5 years. Duration of spells was 15 seconds to 10 minutes. Medications to prevent spells were unsuccessful. Electrocardiograms documented asystolic pauses of 1.7 to 24 seconds (mean: 11.9 seconds). Permanent ventricular demand pacemakers were implanted at 10 months to 5 years of age (median: 14.5 months): 9 endocardial and 1 epicardial. Three patients required pacemaker revision. At follow-up of 38 to 170 months (median: 65.5), 5 patients had complete resolution of spells, 2 had only mild color change without loss of consciousness or seizure activity, and 3 continued to have minor brief spells. Conclusions. Permanent pacemaker therapy for children with pallid breath-holding spells associated with severe bradycardia is safe, efficacious, and warranted.