Key result
Catheter ablation shows no increased long-term risk of lead damage versus historical controls.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the long-term impact of catheter ablation for various arrhythmias on the durability of CIED endocardial leads.
Does catheter ablation increase the risk of lead damage in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices?
Case-Control (n=145)
Does catheter ablation increase the risk of lead damage in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.2% vs 13%
p-value: p=0.054
Catheter ablation does not appear to significantly increase the long-term risk of endocardial lead damage in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.
Ablation appears safe regarding lead integrity in CIED patients; leaves open confirmation in prospective studies.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to assess the long-term influence of catheter ablation (CA) of different arrhythmias on cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) endocardial leads durability. Design. This was a retrospective case-control study. Ablation protocols and in- or outpatient medical records were reviewed to identify and extract data on adult patients with CIED undergoing a CA. A cohort of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) served as a historical control group. The primary endpoint was the diagnosis of lead damage defined as permanent loss of proper function demanding replacement or removal. Results. Among 145 patients n = 177 catheter ablations were performed. Patients’ mean age was 66.4 ± 10.5, 66.1% had an ICD or ICD with cardiac resynchronization function (CRT-D), 18.1% had >1 CA. During median 812 days [IQR 381-1588] of follow-up, there were 11 (6.2%) cases of lead damage in the examined and 13 cases (13%) in the control group, p = 0.054. None of the technical aspects of the CA (indication, type of catheter, transseptal sheath) influenced the primary outcome. Both the number of leads and observation time after CA were significantly related to the risk of endocardial lead damage. Conclusion. This study did not find any significant influence of CA on the long-term durability of CIED endocardial leads. Reported risk factors were consistent with general population of CIED patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Farkowski et al. (2019) conducted a case-control in Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) and arrhythmias (n=145). Catheter ablation vs. Historical control group of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators was evaluated on Diagnosis of lead damage defined as permanent loss of proper function demanding replacement or removal (p=0.054). Catheter ablation in patients with implantable electronic devices did not significantly increase the long-term risk of lead damage compared to historical controls (6.2% vs 13%; p=0.054).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: