Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) with endocardial leads crossing the tricuspid valve can lead to or worsen tricuspid regurgitation (TR), causing substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite a recent randomized controlled study revealing a low short-term incidence of device-related TR (DRT) post-CIED implantation, uncertainties persist regarding the efficacy of intra-procedural 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2DTTE) in preventing long-term TR.

Objectives: To conduct a long-term follow-up study on patients with CIED implants based on a previous study conducted at our hospital.

Methods: In a retrospective study at Assuta Ashdod Medical Center (2018–2019), patients undergoing de-novo CIED implantation with (n=39, group 1) or without (n=51, group 2) intra-procedural 2DTTE were analyzed. Clinical, demographic, and long-term (> 1 year) echocardiographic data were collected and compared.

Results: The study included 90 patients (mean age 72.3 ± 11.0 years, 63% male, 23% ICD, 50% active leads, follow-up 32.8 ± 11 months). TR aggravation was found in 25% of patients (13 in group 1, 10 in group 2), with no statistical difference between groups. Multivariate analysis identified a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) as the sole significant factor in long-term TR deterioration (OR=3.44, 95%CI 1.13–10.43, P = 0.029). Other clinical, demographic, echocardiographic, and device-related factors did not significantly contribute to long-term DRT.

Conclusions: After one-year post-CIED implantation, the incidence of DRT significantly increases. Intra-procedural 2DTTE does not effectively reduce long-term DRT, suggesting that implantation-related mechanisms are less likely the primary cause. AF likely plays a major role in the pathogenesis of long-term TR in this subset post-CIED implantation.

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are increasingly being used; thus, there is an increasing need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE).

Objectives: To summarize our experience with TLE at single referral center in northern Israel.

Methods: The study included all patients who underwent TLE at our center between 2019 and 2022, regardless of the indication.

Results: The cohort included 50 patients. The mean age was 69 ± 10.36 years; 78% were males. A total of 99 electrodes were targeted. The mean number of electrodes was 1.96 (range 1–4) per patient. The time between lead implantation and extraction ranged between 1.1 and 34 years with an average of 8.14 ± 5.71 years (median of 7.5 years). Complete lead removal was achieved in 98% of patients and in 98.99% of leads. The complete procedural success rate as well as the clinical procedural success rate was 96%. The procedural failure rate was 4% (1 patient died 2 days after the index procedure and 1 patient remained with large portion of lead). The indication for TLE was infection in 78% of the cohort group. Powered mechanical sheaths were used in 36 patients (72%), laser sheaths in 27 (54%), and a combination of laser and mechanical sheaths in 16 (32%).

Conclusions: The clinical and procedural success rates of TLE, primarily for CEID-related infection, were high. A combination of laser and mechanical sheaths was needed in one-third of patients.

Background: Existing cardiac disease contributes to poor outcome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Little information exists regarding COVID-19 infection in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED).

Objectives: To assess the association between CIEDs and severity of COVID-19 infection.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis including 13,000 patients > 18 years old with COVID-19 infection between January and December 2020. Patients with COVID-19 who had a permanent pacemaker or defibrillator were matched 1:4 based on age and sex followed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were assessed.

Results: Forty patients with CIED and 160 patients without CIED were included in the current analysis. Mean age was 72.6 ± 13 years, and approximately 50% were females. Majority of the patients in the study arm had a pacemaker (63%), whereas only 15 patients (37%) had a defibrillator. Patients with COVID-19 and CIED presented more often with atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. They were more likely to be hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) and required more ventilatory support (35% vs. 18.3%). Thirty-day mortality (22.5% vs. 13.8%) and 1-year mortality (25% vs. 15%) were higher among patients with COVID-19 and CIED.

Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 and CIED had a significantly higher prevalence of co-morbidities that were associated with increased mortality. Although,CIED by itself was not found as an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality, it may serve as a warning for severe illness with COVID-19.

Background: Pacemaker pocket early post-implantation inflammation (EPII) is defined as clinical signs of local erythema without any systemic signs of infection occurring early after implantation. Data on the best treatment regimen for apparent superficial EPII is scarce. 

Objectives: To investigate the prognostic value of medical treatment, rather than extraction surgery, in patients with EPII. 

Methods: Data from 6013 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation or replacement from 2007–2015 were retrospectively analyzed; 40 (0.7%) presented with EPII. Our goal was the absence of major complications and to avoidance of extraction. 

Results: Patients with EPII were initially treated medically. Nineteen (47%) (group A) recovered with antibiotic treatment only. In the other 21 patients (53%) (group B), CIED extraction was performed. Group B had more major complications compared to group A (15 [71%] vs. 0 [0%], P < 0.001). The only significant difference in baseline characteristics was history of non-initial procedure. While 86% of group B patients had a previous non-initial procedure, only 53% of group A patients underwent previous replacement (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, previous non-initial procedure was the only predictor for need of extraction at 1 year, hazard ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.001–11.73, P < 0.05.

Conclusions: Conservative treatment in patients with EPII after non-initial procedure can lead to serious adverse events resulting in the need for extraction. Close follow-up and aggressive treatment should be considered early in the therapeutic course.