Key result
Non-systematic device reimplantation following lead extraction was safe in selected patients, with 40.9% reaching the primary endpoint of sudden death or reimplantation over 40.4 months.
Why the study?
Some patients no longer meet guideline criteria for reimplantation after CIED removal, but the long-term outcomes of non-systematic device reimplantation remain unknown.
Does a non-systematic device reimplantation strategy safely prevent unnecessary reimplantation compared to systematic reimplantation in patients undergoing CIED extraction?
Cohort (n=854)
No
Does a non-systematic device reimplantation strategy safely prevent unnecessary reimplantation compared to systematic reimplantation in patients undergoing CIED extraction?
Following CIED extraction, a non-systematic reimplantation strategy based on careful reassessment safely avoids unnecessary device reimplantation in approximately 25% of patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support selective non-systematic reimplantation after CIED extraction; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Following the removal of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), reassessment of the need for a new device is vital. Some patients may have exhibited an improvement in rhythm or cardiac function and may thus no longer meet the guideline requirements for reimplantation. However, the long-term outcomes of non-systematic device reimplantation remain unknown. In the present study, it was hypothesized that the implantation of pacing systems in selected patients following lead extraction is safe. In order to confirm this hypothesis, a total of 854 patients (aged between 28 and 82 years) who underwent the removal of a CIED were enrolled in the present study and they were all reassessed to determine whether a new device following lead extraction was necessary. In order to determine which patients would undergo non-systematic device reimplantation, the standard guidelines, the criteria and the wishes of the patient were all taken into consideration. Patients remained device-free unless an adverse clinical event occurred that required reimplantation. The primary study endpoint was the rate of sudden death or reimplantation. Between January, 2014 and December, 2019, 854 consecutive patients underwent pacing system extraction, of whom 210 patients (24.6%) underwent non-systematic device reimplantation following careful reassessment (the non-reimplantation group). Among the 210 patients, 162 (77.1%) were fitted with pacemakers, 26 (12.4%) underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator and 22 (10.5%) were implanted with a cardioverter-defibrillator. During a mean follow-up period of 40.4 months, 86 patients reached the primary endpoint of the study, including 54 out of 210 patients (25.7%) who experienced an adverse clinical event that required reimplantation and 32 out of 210 patients (15.2%) who experienced sudden death. Reimplantation of a new device was not required in ~25% of the patients. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that following pacing system removal, non-systematic device reimplantation associated with close surveillance is safe for selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) removal (n=854). Non-systematic device reimplantation vs. Systematic device reimplantation was evaluated on Rate of sudden death or reimplantation. Non-systematic device reimplantation following lead extraction was safe in selected patients, with 40.9% reaching the primary endpoint of sudden death or reimplantation over 40.4 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: