Search

Aims: Lead perforation is a rare, well-known complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implants, whose management is mostly not evidence-based. Main management strategies include conservative approach based on clinical and lead function follow-up vs. routine invasive lead revision approach. This study compared the complications of both strategies by composite endpoint, including recurrent perforation-related symptoms, recurrent pericardial effusion (PEf), lead dysfunction, and device infection during 12 month follow-up.Methods and Results: Multicentre retrospective analysis, inquiring data from imaging studies, device interrogation, pericardiocentesis, and clinical charts of patients with suspected perforating leads between 2007 and 2014 in five hospitals. All cases were reviewed by electrophysiologist and defined as definite perforations by suggestive symptoms along with lead perforation on imaging, bloody PEf on pericardiocentesis shortly after implant, or right ventricular (RV) lead non-capture along with diaphragmatic stimulation upon bipolar pacing. Clinical outcomes associated with both management approaches were compared, with respect to the composite endpoint. The study included 48 definitive perforation cases: 22 managed conservatively and 26 via lead revision. Conservative management was associated with an increased composite endpoint compared with lead revision (8/22 vs. 1/26; P = 0.007). The dominant complication among the conservative cohort was appearance of cardiac tamponade during follow-up; 5/6 occurring in cases which presented with no or only mild PEf and were treated by antiplatelets/coagulants during or shortly after CIED implantation.Conclusion: A conservative management of CIED lead perforation is associated with increased complications compared with early lead revision. Lead revision may be the preferred management particularly in patients receiving antiplatelets/coagulants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Lead perforation is a rare, well-known complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implants, whose management is mostly not evidence-based. Main management strategies include conservative approach based on clinical and lead function follow-up vs. routine invasive lead revision approach. This study compared the complications of both strategies by composite endpoint, including recurrent perforation-related symptoms, recurrent pericardial effusion (PEf), lead dysfunction, and device infection during 12 month follow-up., Methods and Results: Multicentre retrospective analysis, inquiring data from imaging studies, device interrogation, pericardiocentesis, and clinical charts of patients with suspected perforating leads between 2007 and 2014 in five hospitals. All cases were reviewed by electrophysiologist and defined as definite perforations by suggestive symptoms along with lead perforation on imaging, bloody PEf on pericardiocentesis shortly after implant, or right ventricular (RV) lead non-capture along with diaphragmatic stimulation upon bipolar pacing. Clinical outcomes associated with both management approaches were compared, with respect to the composite endpoint. The study included 48 definitive perforation cases: 22 managed conservatively and 26 via lead revision. Conservative management was associated with an increased composite endpoint compared with lead revision (8/22 vs. 1/26; P = 0.007). The dominant complication among the conservative cohort was appearance of cardiac tamponade during follow-up; 5/6 occurring in cases which presented with no or only mild PEf and were treated by antiplatelets/coagulants during or shortly after CIED implantation., Conclusion: A conservative management of CIED lead perforation is associated with increased complications compared with early lead revision. Lead revision may be the preferred management particularly in patients receiving antiplatelets/coagulants., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) is an alternative to manual catheter control (MCC) radiofrequency ablation of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) arrhythmias. The data to support RMN approach is limited. We aimed to investigate the clinical and procedural outcomes in a cohort of patients undergoing RVOT premature ventricular complex/ventricular tachycardia (PVCs/VT) ablation procedures using RMN vs. MCC., Methods and Results: Data was collected from two centres. Eighty-nine consecutive RVOT PVCs/VT ablation procedures were performed in 75 patients; RMN: 42 procedures and MCC: 47 procedures. CARTOXPTM or CARTO3 (Biosense Webster) was used for endocardial mapping in 19/42 (45%) in RMN group and 28/47 (60%) in MCC group; EnSiteTM NavXTM (St. Jude Medical) was used in the rest of the cohort. Stereotaxis platform (Stereotaxis Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) was used for RMN approach. Procedural time was 113 ± 53 min in the RMN group and 115 ± 69 min in MCC (P = 0.90). Total fluoroscopic time was 10.9 ± 5.8 vs. 20.5 ± 13.8 (P < 0.05) and total ablation energy application time 7.0 ± 4.7 vs 11.9 ± 16 (P = 0.67) accordingly. There were two complications in RMN group and five in MCC (P = 0.43). Acute procedural success rate was 80% in RMN vs. 74% in MCC group (P = 0.46). After a median follow-up of 25 months (interquartile range 13-34), the success rate remained 55% in the RMN group and 53% in MCC (P = 0.96)., Conclusion: Right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia ablations were performed using half of fluoroscopic times with Stereotaxis platform RMN compared to manual approach. Acute and chronic success rates as well as complication rates were not significantly different.