1255Comprehensive analysis of pacemaker patients with and without abandoned leads undergoing transvenous lead extraction: A GALLERY subgroup analysis

Abstract

OnBehalf GALLERY investigators Background The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-associated complications such as infection, lead dysfunction or thrombotic events is continuously rising and thus making transvenous lead extraction (TLE) an ever more needed procedure in clinical practice today. Patients with abandoned leads represent a special cohort with a potentially higher susceptibility to CIED-related infections and vascular complications. Moreover, according to literature abandoned leads seem to be associated with more procedural complications and mortality during TLE. Aim The aim of this study was to provide an insight on safety, procedural outcome and risk prediction on pacemaker patients with abandoned leads undergoing TLE from the largest national laser-sheath registry to date. Methods + Results: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the GALLERY database, which collected 2533 patients undergoing TLE in Germany between 2013 and 2017. Out of 903 pacemaker patients, who underwent TLE, 226 patients (25.0%) with abandoned leads were identified. Those patients had a higher number of leads per patient (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3; ns) and longer lead dwell-times (168.0 ± 89.7 vs. 123.0 ± 69.2 months; p < 0.0001) compared to pacemaker patients without abandoned leads. There were no differences in age (71.5 vs. 72.3 years; ns), body mass index (26.5 ± 4.5 vs. 26.78 ± 4.8 kg/m2; ns) or gender distribution (69.0 vs. 66.5% male; ns). Leading indication for TLE was device infection with no difference between groups (79.7 vs 77.8 %; ns). There were no differences in terms of pacemaker dependency, length of hospitalization or comorbidities. Patients with abandoned leads had longer procedure times (112.0 ± 69.0 vs. 86.4 ± 53.0 minutes; p < 0.0001) and a higher incidence of procedural complications (6.6 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.03), but there were no differences in neither procedural and clinical success rates (96.5 vs. 97.3%; ns), nor all-cause mortality (1.33 vs. 2.66%; ns). Multivariate logistic regression revealed abandoned leads (OR 2.1, CI 1.0-4.4, p = 0.04) and female gender (OR 2.4, CI 1.2-4.9, p = 0.02) as independent predictors for procedural complications. Systemic infection (OR 5.4, CI 2.0-14.8, p = 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (OR 4.0, CI 1.5-10.7, p = 0.007) were strong predictors for all-cause mortality in patients with indwelling pacemaker. Patient age > 75 years (OR 3.9, CI 2.7-5.6, p < 0.0001) and a lead dwell-time > 10 years (OR 1.6, CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.01) were identified as risk factors for an infectious cause for TLE. Conclusion Abandoned leads are frequently encountered in pacemaker patients undergoing TLE and pose an important risk factor for procedural complications. Systemic CIED-related infections are the strongest driver of mortality in this patient cohort and urgently call for further improvements in early diagnosis and prevention.