Is there an adverse outcome from abandoned pacing leads?

BACKGROUND: Indications for extraction of an abandoned pacemaker lead (APL) are controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not APLs should be extracted in the absence of pacemaker-related problems. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed, from 1977 through 1998, all patients with retained, non-functional leads and identified 433-266 males and 167 females. Mean age at initial pacemaker implantation was 68[emsp4 ]years. These patients received a total of 259 atrial and 948 ventricular leads. Of the total of 1,207 leads, 611 became non-functional. A total of 531 non-functional leads were abandoned, of which 18 were later extracted: one APL in 345 patients, two in 78, and three in 10. Indications for new lead placement when non-functional leads were abandoned included capture and/or sensing failure (243), lead recall (177), lead fracture (86), pacing system replacement to the contralateral side (11), accommodating patient growth (5), pacemaker function upgrade (5), replacement with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD, 2), interference with ICD (1), and unknown (1). Complications that were associated with pacemakers were found in 24 patients (5.5%)-pacemaker system infection (8 patients) and venous occlusion at the time of a subsequent procedure of new lead placement when APLs had already been in place (16) which resulted in APL extraction (7) or transfer of the pacemaker system to the contralateral side (9). Neither venous thrombosis nor other complications were found in the remaining 409 patients (94.5%). The incidence of complications was higher in patients with three APLs than in patients with two or fewer APLs (40% vs. 4.7%, P=1x10(-6)), in patients with four or more total lead implantations than in patients with three or fewer total lead implantations (26.2% vs. 0. 6%, P<1x10(-10)), and in patients with three or more procedures of new lead placements than in patients with two or fewer procedures of new lead placements (36.4% vs. 3.9%, P=1x10(-10)). Patients with complications were younger than those without complications both at the time of initial pacemaker implantation (59+/-16 vs. 68+/-17 y, P=0.01) and when non-functional leads were abandoned (63+/-15 vs. 71+/-16 y, P=0.04). Mean numbers of APLs, total leads implanted, and procedures of new lead placement were significantly larger in patients with complications than in those without complications (1.58+/-0.78 vs. 1.2+/-0.44, 4.96+/-1.23 vs. 2.66+/-0.8, and 2.13+/-0.85 vs. 1.25+/-0.53, P=0.03, 4x10(-9) and 4x10(-5), respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: 1. With only 5.5% of patients having had pacemaker-related complications, the adverse outcome of APL is small. 2. Clinical clues to the possible occasion for pacemaker-related complications include three or more APLs, four or more total leads, three or more procedures of new lead placement, and a younger age at initial pacemaker implantation. 3. Patients with a large number of APLs, total lead implantations, and procedures of new lead placement should be carefully observed to detect possible pacemaker-associated complications.