Key result
Patients without device reimplantation after CIED extraction had significantly lower overall survival compared to those who underwent reimplantation (60% vs. 93%; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does CIED extraction without reimplantation affect overall survival compared to reimplantation in patients undergoing device extraction?
Cohort (n=678)
Yes
Does CIED extraction without reimplantation affect overall survival compared to reimplantation in patients undergoing device extraction?
Absolute Event Rate: 60% vs 93%
p-value: p=<0.001
Patients undergoing CIED extraction without reimplantation have significantly higher mortality driven by device complications and comorbidities, although arrhythmia-related death is rare.
Should not yet change reimplantation practice after CIED extraction; this observational association leaves open causal effects on survival.
AIMS: Outcomes among patients who do not receive device reimplantation after cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction have not been well studied. The present study aims to investigate the outcomes of patients without device reimplantation after lead extraction and device removal. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively searched for consecutive patients who underwent CIED extraction at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN and University of California San Diego Medical Center from 2001 through 2012. Among the patients identified, we compared characteristics of those who did and did not have device reimplantation. The Kaplan-Meier survival was analysed. Among 678 patients, 97 patients had their device extracted without reimplantation during 1-year follow-up ('no-reimplant group'). Median age was younger in the no-reimplant group (60.7 vs. 70.6 years; P < 0.001). The reasons for no reimplantation were as follows: no longer meeting criteria for CIED (48%), inappropriate device indication at initial implantation (23%), patient preference (17%), and unresolved device complications (12%). Three major arrhythmias were reported in the no-reimplant group. Overall survival in the no-reimplant group was significantly lower than in the reimplant group (60 vs. 93%; P < 0.001). Ongoing device-related complications [hazard ratio (HR), 3.91; 95% CI, 1.74-8.81; P = 0.001], infection (HR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.24-7.52; P = 0.02), and concurrent dialysis (HR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.12-6.71; P = 0.03) were associated with increased mortality. Of 31 deaths in the no-reimplant group, 1 was secondary to cardiac arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: Fourteen per cent of patients who had device extraction did not undergo reimplantation mainly because they no longer met CIED indications. The high mortality in these patients is related to device complications and comorbid conditions, whereas mortality associated with arrhythmia is rare.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Hijji et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction (n=678). No device reimplantation vs. Device reimplantation was evaluated on Overall survival (p=<0.001). Patients without device reimplantation after CIED extraction had significantly lower overall survival compared to those who underwent reimplantation (60% vs. 93%; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: