Charles J Lenz1,2, Christopher V DeSimone2,3, Shiva P Ponamgi2,4, Alan Sugrue1,2, Lawrence J Sinak2,3, Krishnaswamy Chandrasekaran2,3, Douglas L Packer2,3, Samuel J Asirvatham5,6,7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System, Austin, MN, USA. 5. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. asirvatham.samuel@mayo.edu. 6. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. asirvatham.samuel@mayo.edu. 7. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. asirvatham.samuel@mayo.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) leads frequently develop echogenic masses. However, the nature of these masses is not well understood. In patients in whom atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is planned, there is concern that transseptal puncture may result in cerebrovascular embolism of these masses. The optimal therapeutic strategy in this setting remains undefined. METHODS: We describe six patients identified over a 6-year period (2008-2014) with device lead-based masses prior to or at the time of AF ablation. We examined the anticoagulation strategy and periprocedural management based on mass identification. RESULTS: In all six patients (age 39-73; four males), the device lead mass was found in the right atrium. The average mass size was 11 ± 1.3 mm. The majority of patients were already on anticoagulation (5/6; 83 %), and an intensified anticoagulation regimen was initiated (INR goal 3.0). In all six patients, the size of the device lead mass decreased on repeat imaging. In two sixths (33 %) patients, the lead-based mass completely resolved within 2 months. The remaining four patients had persistent lead-based masses (average follow-up of 10.9 ± 9.6 months). DISCUSSION: We describe a series of patients with CIED lead-based masses found at the time of ablation. These cases illustrate that lead-based masses can disappear while patients are on high-intensity anticoagulation, most compatible with a thrombotic origin. These early data will need to be assessed in larger cohorts for further validation and evaluation of safety.
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) leads frequently develop echogenic masses. However, the nature of these masses is not well understood. In patients in whom atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is planned, there is concern that transseptal puncture may result in cerebrovascular embolism of these masses. The optimal therapeutic strategy in this setting remains undefined. METHODS: We describe six patients identified over a 6-year period (2008-2014) with device lead-based masses prior to or at the time of AF ablation. We examined the anticoagulation strategy and periprocedural management based on mass identification. RESULTS: In all six patients (age 39-73; four males), the device lead mass was found in the right atrium. The average mass size was 11 ± 1.3 mm. The majority of patients were already on anticoagulation (5/6; 83 %), and an intensified anticoagulation regimen was initiated (INR goal 3.0). In all six patients, the size of the device lead mass decreased on repeat imaging. In two sixths (33 %) patients, the lead-based mass completely resolved within 2 months. The remaining four patients had persistent lead-based masses (average follow-up of 10.9 ± 9.6 months). DISCUSSION: We describe a series of patients with CIED lead-based masses found at the time of ablation. These cases illustrate that lead-based masses can disappear while patients are on high-intensity anticoagulation, most compatible with a thrombotic origin. These early data will need to be assessed in larger cohorts for further validation and evaluation of safety.
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Petri J Korkeila; Markku K Saraste; Kai M Nyman; Juhani Koistinen; Juha Lund; Karl Eino Juhani Airaksinen Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Amit Noheria; Shiva P Ponamgi; Christopher V Desimone; Vaibhav R Vaidya; Christopher A Aakre; Elisa Ebrille; Tiffany Hu; David O Hodge; Joshua P Slusser; Naser M Ammash; Charles J Bruce; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Paul A Friedman; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: Europace Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Daniel Scherr; Kavita Sharma; Darshan Dalal; David Spragg; Karuna Chilukuri; Alan Cheng; Jun Dong; Charles A Henrikson; Saman Nazarian; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Joseph E Marine Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-12
Authors: Larry M Baddour; Andrew E Epstein; Christopher C Erickson; Bradley P Knight; Matthew E Levison; Peter B Lockhart; Frederick A Masoudi; Eric J Okum; Walter R Wilson; Lee B Beerman; Ann F Bolger; N A Mark Estes; Michael Gewitz; Jane W Newburger; Eleanor B Schron; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 29.690