AbstractAims Commonly, a dysfunctional defibrillator lead is abandoned and a new lead is implanted. Long-term follow-up data on abandoned leads are sparse. We aimed to investigate the incidence and reasons for extraction of abandoned defibrillator leads in a nationwide cohort and to describe extraction procedure-related complications.Methods and results All abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads were identified in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register from 1991 to 2019. The event-free survival of abandoned defibrillator leads was studied, and medical records of patients with interventions on abandoned defibrillator leads were audited for procedure-related data. We identified 740 abandoned defibrillator leads. Meantime from implantation to abandonment was 7.2 ± 3.8 years with mean patient age at abandonment of 66.5 ± 13.7 years. During a mean follow-up after abandonment of 4.4 ± 3.1 years, 65 (8.8%) abandoned defibrillator leads were extracted. Most frequent reason for extraction was infection (pocket and systemic) in 41 (63%) patients. Procedural outcome after lead extraction was clinical success in 63 (97%) patients. Minor complications occurred in 3 (5%) patients, and major complications in 1 (2%) patient. No patient died from complication to the procedure during 30-day follow-up after extraction.Conclusion More than 90% of abandoned defibrillator leads do not need to be extracted during long-term follow-up. The most common indication for extraction is infection. Abandoned defibrillator leads can be extracted with high clinical success rate and low risk of major complications at high-volume centres.
The validity of data on defibrillator lead performance recorded in the DPIR is excellent for the specific types of lead intervention and good for the specific reasons for defibrillator lead intervention. The validity of the less detailed overall reasons for lead interventions commonly used to report lead performance is also excellent. These findings indicate high registry data quality appropriate for scientific analysis and industry-independent post-marketing surveillance.
Background
Atrial fibrillation and flutter are often treated with external electrical cardioversion (ECV) in patients with potentially electrically sensitive cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED). Long‐term follow‐up data on contemporary CIED undergoing ECV is sparse. The aim is to investigate shock‐related complications and impact on CIEDs.
Methods
All ECV procedures from 2010 to 2020 in patients with CIED performed at a tertiary university hospital were identified in the Danish National Patient Registry. Changes in device measurements after ECV were retrospectively studied and procedure‐related complications were identified by review of medical records.
Results
We analyzed 763 ECV procedures in 372 patients, median device implant time 1.9 years. The mean age of patients was 69.9 ± 9.9 years of which 73.4% were men. We identified two cases of device programming changes and four cases of premature battery depletion (≤3 years after device implant). Minor changes in device measurements were found for impedances, sensing, and pacing thresholds. No patients died due to ECV‐related device dysfunctions within the first 12 months after cardioversions.
Conclusion
External cardioversion in patients with contemporary pacemakers and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators seems safe in the majority of patients. Clinically important changes in device function following cardioversion were rarely observed but may be critical for device function. In an observational study, causality between cardioversion and device dysfunction cannot be established. For patient safety, we suggest that routine device interrogation after cardioversion still should be part of standard care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.