Key result
CIED extraction for lead dysfunction is linked to 100% re-implantation and earlier replacement versus infection.
Why the study?
With increasing CIED implantations and subsequent extractions for complications such as infection and lead dysfunction, the optimal timing for CIED re-implantation remains uncertain.
What is the rate and timing of CIED re-implantation after extraction for complications such as infection and lead dysfunction?
Cohort (n=243)
No
What is the rate and timing of CIED re-implantation after extraction for complications such as infection and lead dysfunction?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 80.7%
Approximately 10% of extracted CIEDs are not re-implanted, and re-implantation occurs earlier and more frequently for lead dysfunction compared to infectious indications.
May inform indication-specific re-implantation timing after CIED extraction; this cohort study leaves open optimal strategies.
Background: With increasing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations, growing number of extractions of leads and devices are noted, mainly for complications such as infection and lead dysfunction. The optimal timing for re-implantation remains uncertain. We investigated the time to eventual re-implantation of CIEDs in the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium.Methods: All consecutive patients, referred for extraction between January 2005 and December 2016, were analysed for the timing of eventual re-implantation.Results: Two-hundred and forty-three patients were included. Mean follow-up was 77 ± 37 months. Global re-implantation rate was 89.3%: 100% for lead dysfunctions versus 80.7% following infections. Median time to re-implantation (TTR) was 0 [0–111] days and 8.5 [0–3025] days, respectively (p < .001). Globally 0 [0–3025] days. Re-implantation was performed in 83.2% of pacemaker patients, compared to 95.8% of defibrillator patients (p < .001). Median TTR was 4 [0–3025] days and 0 [0–345] days, respectively (p < .001). In AV-block related pacemaker indications, 90% were re-implanted, compared to 78% for symptomatic indications (p = .09). Median TTR was 2 [0–3025] and 6 [0–2047] days, respectively (p = .02). Re-implantation was performed in 96.7% of defibrillator patients with a secondary prevention indication, compared to 94.7% with primary prevention indication (p = .59). Median TTR was 0 [0–164] and 0 [0–345] days, respectively (p = .472).Conclusions: Ten percent of CIEDs is not re-implanted after extraction. CIEDs are re-implanted more often and earlier after extraction for lead dysfunction than after extraction for infectious reasons. Pacemakers are re-implanted less and later than defibrillators. Re-implantation is performed faster in stronger clinical CIED indications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schouwer et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction (n=243). CIED extraction for lead dysfunction vs. CIED extraction for infection was evaluated on Re-implantation rate. CIEDs are re-implanted more often and earlier after extraction for lead dysfunction (100%, median 0 days) than for infectious reasons (80.7%, median 8.5 days; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: