Koen De Schouwer1, Ruben Vanhove2, Christophe Garweg1,3, Gabor Voros1, Peter Haemers1, Joris Ector1,3, Rik Willems1,3. 1. a Department of Cardiology , University Hospitals Leuven , Leuven , Belgium. 2. b Department of Internal Medicine , University Hospitals Leuven , Leuven , Belgium. 3. c Department of Cardiovascular Sciences , University of Leuven , Leuven , Belgium.
Abstract
Background: With increasing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations, growing number of extractions of leads and devices are noted, mainly for complications such as infection and lead dysfunction. The optimal timing for re-implantation remains uncertain. We investigated the time to eventual re-implantation of CIEDs in the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. Methods: All consecutive patients, referred for extraction between January 2005 and December 2016, were analysed for the timing of eventual re-implantation. Results: Two-hundred and forty-three patients were included. Mean follow-up was 77 ± 37 months. Global re-implantation rate was 89.3%: 100% for lead dysfunctions versus 80.7% following infections. Median time to re-implantation (TTR) was 0 [0-111] days and 8.5 [0-3025] days, respectively (p < .001). Globally 0 [0-3025] days. Re-implantation was performed in 83.2% of pacemaker patients, compared to 95.8% of defibrillator patients (p < .001). Median TTR was 4 [0-3025] days and 0 [0-345] days, respectively (p < .001). In AV-block related pacemaker indications, 90% were re-implanted, compared to 78% for symptomatic indications (p = .09). Median TTR was 2 [0-3025] and 6 [0-2047] days, respectively (p = .02). Re-implantation was performed in 96.7% of defibrillator patients with a secondary prevention indication, compared to 94.7% with primary prevention indication (p = .59). Median TTR was 0 [0-164] and 0 [0-345] days, respectively (p = .472). Conclusions: Ten percent of CIEDs is not re-implanted after extraction. CIEDs are re-implanted more often and earlier after extraction for lead dysfunction than after extraction for infectious reasons. Pacemakers are re-implanted less and later than defibrillators. Re-implantation is performed faster in stronger clinical CIED indications.
Background: With increasing cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations, growing number of extractions of leads and devices are noted, mainly for complications such as infection and lead dysfunction. The optimal timing for re-implantation remains uncertain. We investigated the time to eventual re-implantation of CIEDs in the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. Methods: All consecutive patients, referred for extraction between January 2005 and December 2016, were analysed for the timing of eventual re-implantation. Results: Two-hundred and forty-three patients were included. Mean follow-up was 77 ± 37 months. Global re-implantation rate was 89.3%: 100% for lead dysfunctions versus 80.7% following infections. Median time to re-implantation (TTR) was 0 [0-111] days and 8.5 [0-3025] days, respectively (p < .001). Globally 0 [0-3025] days. Re-implantation was performed in 83.2% of pacemaker patients, compared to 95.8% of defibrillator patients (p < .001). Median TTR was 4 [0-3025] days and 0 [0-345] days, respectively (p < .001). In AV-block related pacemaker indications, 90% were re-implanted, compared to 78% for symptomatic indications (p = .09). Median TTR was 2 [0-3025] and 6 [0-2047] days, respectively (p = .02). Re-implantation was performed in 96.7% of defibrillator patients with a secondary prevention indication, compared to 94.7% with primary prevention indication (p = .59). Median TTR was 0 [0-164] and 0 [0-345] days, respectively (p = .472). Conclusions: Ten percent of CIEDs is not re-implanted after extraction. CIEDs are re-implanted more often and earlier after extraction for lead dysfunction than after extraction for infectious reasons. Pacemakers are re-implanted less and later than defibrillators. Re-implantation is performed faster in stronger clinical CIED indications.