Removal of Electrophysiological Devices in the Context of Heart Transplantation: Comparison of Combined and Staged Extraction Procedures

Abstract

Background During heart transplantation (HTx), tip of the leads of cardiac implantable electrophysiological devices (CIEPD) has to be cut when resecting the heart. Timing of the removal of the remaining device and leads is still discussed controversially.

Methods Between 2010 and 2021, n = 201 patients underwent HTx, of those n = 124 (61.7%) carried a present CIEPD. These patients were divided on the basis of the time of complete device removal (combined procedure with HTx, n = 40 or staged procedure, n = 84).

Results CIEPD was removed 11.4 ± 6.7 days after the initial HTx in staged patients. Dwelling time, number of leads as well as incidence of retained components (combined: 8.1%, staged: 7.7%, p = 1.00) were comparable between both groups. While postoperative incidence of infections (p = 0.52), neurological events (p = 0.47), and acute kidney injury (p = 0.44) did not differ, staged patients suffered more often from primary graft dysfunction with temporary mechanical assistance (combined: 20.0%, staged: 40.5%, p = 0.03). Consecutively, stay on intensive care unit (p = 0.02) was prolonged and transfusions of red blood cells (p = 0.15) and plasma (p = 0.06) as well as re-thoracotomy for thoracic bleeding complications (p = 0.10) were numerically increased in this group. However, we did not observe any differences in postoperative survival.

Conclusion Presence of CIEPD is common in HTx patients. However, the extraction strategy of CIEPD most likely did not affect postoperative morbidity and mortality except primary graft dysfunction. Especially, retained components, blood transfusions, and infective complications are not correlated to the timing of CIEPD removal.

Keywords

resynchronization therapy - electrophysiological device - heart failure - transplantation

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors' Contribution

M.I. contributed toward conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—re-view and editing. U.-B. contributed toward conceptualization, data curation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, writing—review and editing. K.S. contributed toward data curation, methodology, investigation, validation, writing—review and editing. S.E.-K. worked toward data curation, resources, investigation, validation, writing—review and editing. D.O. contributed toward data curation, resources, investigation, validation, writing—review and editing. H.D. did the data curation, investigation, validation, writing—review and editing. R.W. Data curation, resources, investigation, validation, writing—review and editing. H.A. contributed toward data curation, investigation, validation, writing—review and editing. I.T. contributed to data curation, investigation, validation, writing—review and editing. A.L. contributed toward data curation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, writing—review and editing. P.A. contributed toward conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, writing—review and editing.

Publication History

Received: 23 July 2021

Accepted: 15 September 2021

Article published online:
11 December 2021

• References

• 1 van der Meer P, Gaggin HK, Dec GW. ACC/AHA versus ESC guidelines on heart failure: JACC guideline comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73 (21) 2756-2768
• 2 Tzou WS, Hussein AA, Madhavan M. et al. Year in review in cardiac electrophysiology. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2019; 12 (02) e007142
• 3 Mills RM, Zhu V, Cody RJ, Yuan Z. Estimated prevalence of implanted electrophysiologic devices in patients with heart failure. Am Heart J 2015; 169 (01) 188-189
• 4 Riaz T, Nienaber JJ, Baddour LM, Walker RC, Park SJ, Sohail MR. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections in left ventricular assist device recipients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014; 37 (02) 225-230
• 5 Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL. et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm 2017; 14 (12) e503-e551
• 6 Bongiorni MG, Burri H, Deharo JC. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 EHRA expert consensus statement on lead extraction: recommendations on definitions, endpoints, research trial design, and data collection requirements for clinical scientific studies and registries: endorsed by APHRS/HRS/LAHRS. Europace 2018; 20 (07) 1217
• 7 Sood N, Martin DT, Lampert R, Curtis JP, Parzynski C, Clancy J. Incidence and predictors of perioperative complications with transvenous lead extractions: real-world experience with National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2018; 11 (02) e004768
• 8 Bongiorni MG, Kennergren C, Butter C. et al; ELECTRa Investigators. The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) study: a European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Registry of transvenous lead extraction outcomes. Eur Heart J 2017; 38 (40) 2995-3005
• 9 Aleong RG, Zipse MM, Tompkins C. et al. Analysis of outcomes in 8304 patients undergoing lead extraction for infection. J Am Heart Assoc 2020; 9 (07) e011473
• 10 Perez AA, Woo FW, Tsang DC, Carrillo RG. Transvenous lead extractions: current approaches and future trends. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev 2018; 7 (03) 210-217
• 11 Yildirim Y, Petersen J, Tönnis T, Reichenspurner H, Pecha S. Hybrid transvenous lead extraction during cardiac surgery for valvular endocarditis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2020; 31 (08) 2101-2106
• 12 Hasumi E, Fujiu K, Kojima T. et al. Novel extraction technique of retained pacemaker and defibrillator lead during heart transplantation. PLoS One 2018; 13 (09) e0203172
• 13 Pettit SJ, Orzalkiewicz M, Nawaz MA, Lewis C, Parameshwar J, Tsui S. Retained pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator components after heart transplantation are common and may lead to adverse events. Europace 2018; 20 (08) 1312-1317
• 14 Kim J, Hwang J, Choi JH. et al. Frequency and clinical impact of retained implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead materials in heart transplant recipients. PLoS One 2017; 12 (05) e0176925
• 15 Martin A, Voss J, Shannon D, Ruygrok P, Lever N. Frequency and sequelae of retained implanted cardiac device material post heart transplantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014; 37 (02) 242-248
• 16 Burger H, Ziegelhoeffer T, Schoenburg M, Richter M. Recurrent bacteremia after heart transplantation due to abandoned lead fragment in an anonymous vein–—a case report. Transplant Proc 2018; 50 (10) 4071-4074
• 17 Durante-Mangoni E, Vitrone M, Mattucci I, Caprioli V, Maiello C. Infection of retained defibrillator lead fragment after heart transplant. Clin Pract 2017; 7 (02) 857
• 18 Kędziora A, Wierzbicki K, Mazur P. et al. Impact of postoperative bleeding on short-term outcome in patients after orthotopic heart transplantation: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Transplant 2016; 21: 689-694
• 19 Hahnel F, Pecha S, Bernhardt A. et al. Transvenous lead extraction after heart transplantation: how to avoid abandoned lead fragments. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2020; 31 (04) 854-859
• 20 Kuśmierski K, Przybylski A, Oręziak A, Sobieszczańska-Małek M, Kołsut P, Różański J. Post heart transplant extraction of the abandoned fragments of pacing and defibrillation leads: proposed management algorithm. Kardiol Pol 2013; 71 (02) 159-163