Key result
Leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICDs should be considered over transvenous leads to protect vascular access in patients with rapid chronic kidney disease progression or GFR <20 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Why the study?
What are the optimal strategies for CIED placement to protect vascular access in patients with end-stage kidney disease?
What are the optimal strategies for CIED placement to protect vascular access in patients with end-stage kidney disease?
Leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICDs should be considered in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease to preserve vascular access and avoid complications associated with transvenous leads.
May support prioritizing arteriovenous access before CIED leads in ESRD; leaves open optimal sequencing in prospective studies.
For arrhythmia treatment or sudden cardiac death prevention in hemodialysis patients, there is a frequent need for placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization device). Leads from a cardiac implantable electronic device can cause central vein stenosis and carry the risk of tricuspid regurgitation or contribute to infective endocarditis. In patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring vascular access and cardiac implantable electronic device, the best strategy is to create an arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral upper limb for a cardiac implantable electronic device and avoidance of central vein catheter. Fortunately, cardiac electrotherapy is moving toward miniaturization and less transvenous wires. Whenever feasible, one should avoid transvenous leads and choose alternative options such as subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, epicardial leads, and leadless pacemaker. Based on recent reports on the leadless pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator effectiveness, in patients with rapid progression of chronic kidney disease (high risk of renal failure) or glomerular filtration rate <20 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , this option should be considered by the implanting cardiologist for future access protection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kusztal et al. (2018) conducted a review in End-stage kidney disease requiring cardiac implantable electronic devices. Leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs, and epicardial leads vs. Transvenous leads was evaluated. Leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICDs should be considered over transvenous leads to protect vascular access in patients with rapid chronic kidney disease progression or GFR <20 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: