Wissam Mekary MD, Rand Ibrahim MD, Stacy Westerman MD, Anand Shah MD, Neal K. Bhatia MD, Faisal M. Merchant MD, FHRS, Mikhael F. El-Chami MD, FHRS
{"title":"Procedural and long-term outcomes of tunneled transvenous leads","authors":"Wissam Mekary MD, Rand Ibrahim MD, Stacy Westerman MD, Anand Shah MD, Neal K. Bhatia MD, Faisal M. Merchant MD, FHRS, Mikhael F. El-Chami MD, FHRS","doi":"10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.08.063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Lead-related venous stenosis and occlusion can complicate the insertion or replacement of transvenous leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). A possible solution is to tunnel the lead from the contralateral vasculature to the ipsilateral generator. Procedural complications and long-term outcomes remain unclear with this technique.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>We sought to assess outcomes of tunneled transvenous leads.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent transvenous CIED lead tunneling to a contralateral pocket at our institution between 2014 and 2024. Clinical characteristics, indications for lead implantation, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were collected.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified that 27 patients underwent transvenous lead tunneling at our institution. Most patients were men (20, 74%) with a mean age of 68.8 ± 18.3 years. Most patients had nonischemic cardiomyopathy (16, 59%) with a mean ejection fraction of 29.3% ± 11.3%. The tunneled leads were coronary sinus leads (20, 74%), followed by defibrillator leads (5, 18.5%) and right ventricular pacing leads (2, 7.4%). Implantation procedures were primarily for device upgrade (18), lead revisions (8), or de novo lead placement (1). No postoperative complications were seen. Patients were followed for a mean of 2.2 ± 1.4 years. One tunneled defibrillator lead (3.7%) had low shock impedance 3 years after implantation, which was monitored and did not require an intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In patients with ipsilateral venous occlusion, contralateral lead tunneling appears to be an effective and safe approach to manage patients with CIEDs and occluded ipsilateral subclavian veins.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12886,"journal":{"name":"Heart rhythm","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages 1307-1311"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart rhythm","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1547527124032892","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Lead-related venous stenosis and occlusion can complicate the insertion or replacement of transvenous leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). A possible solution is to tunnel the lead from the contralateral vasculature to the ipsilateral generator. Procedural complications and long-term outcomes remain unclear with this technique.
Objective
We sought to assess outcomes of tunneled transvenous leads.
Methods
We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent transvenous CIED lead tunneling to a contralateral pocket at our institution between 2014 and 2024. Clinical characteristics, indications for lead implantation, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were collected.
Results
We identified that 27 patients underwent transvenous lead tunneling at our institution. Most patients were men (20, 74%) with a mean age of 68.8 ± 18.3 years. Most patients had nonischemic cardiomyopathy (16, 59%) with a mean ejection fraction of 29.3% ± 11.3%. The tunneled leads were coronary sinus leads (20, 74%), followed by defibrillator leads (5, 18.5%) and right ventricular pacing leads (2, 7.4%). Implantation procedures were primarily for device upgrade (18), lead revisions (8), or de novo lead placement (1). No postoperative complications were seen. Patients were followed for a mean of 2.2 ± 1.4 years. One tunneled defibrillator lead (3.7%) had low shock impedance 3 years after implantation, which was monitored and did not require an intervention.
Conclusion
In patients with ipsilateral venous occlusion, contralateral lead tunneling appears to be an effective and safe approach to manage patients with CIEDs and occluded ipsilateral subclavian veins.
期刊介绍:
HeartRhythm, the official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society and the Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, is a unique journal for fundamental discovery and clinical applicability.
HeartRhythm integrates the entire cardiac electrophysiology (EP) community from basic and clinical academic researchers, private practitioners, engineers, allied professionals, industry, and trainees, all of whom are vital and interdependent members of our EP community.
The Heart Rhythm Society is the international leader in science, education, and advocacy for cardiac arrhythmia professionals and patients, and the primary information resource on heart rhythm disorders. Its mission is to improve the care of patients by promoting research, education, and optimal health care policies and standards.