Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Device: The Impact of Systemic and Local Infection on Clinical Outcomes. An ESC‐EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction Controlled) Registry Substudy

Background: Infections of cardiac implantable devices (CIEDI) have poor outcomes despite improvement in lead extraction (TLE) procedures. Methods: To explore the influence of CIEDI on the outcomes of TLE and the differences between patients with systemic (Sy) vs. local (Lo) CIEDI, we performed a sub‐analysis of the EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) Registry. Results: Among 3555 patients enrolled by 73 centers in 19 Countries, the indication for TLE was CIEDI in 1850: 1170 with Lo‐CIEDI and 680 with Sy‐CIEDI. Patients with CIEDI had a worse in‐hospital prognosis in terms of major complications (3.57% vs. 1.71%; p = 0.0007) and mortality (2.27% vs. 0.49%; p < 0.0001). Sy‐CIEDI was an independent predictor of in‐hospital death (H.R. 2.14; 95%CI 1.06–4.33. p = 0.0345). Patients with Sy‐CIEDI more frequently had an initial CIED implant and a higher prevalence of comorbidities, while subjects with Lo‐CIEDI had a higher prevalence of previous CIED procedures. Time from signs of CIEDI and TLE was longer for Lo‐CIEDI despite a shorter pre‐TLE antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: Patients with CIEDI have a worse in‐hospital prognosis after TLE, especially for patients with Sy‐CIEDI. These results raise the suspicion that in a relevant group of patients CIEDI can be systemic from the beginning without progression from Lo‐CIEDI. Future research is needed to characterize this subgroup of patients

ILEEM-survey on the Heart Team approach and team training for lead extraction procedures

Background: The Heart Team approach has become an integral part of modern cardiovascular medicine. To evaluate current opinions and real-world practice among lead extraction practitioners, an online survey was created and distributed among a pool of lead extraction specialists participating in the International Lead Extraction Expert Meeting (ILEEM) 2018. Methods: The online survey consisted of 10 questions and was performed using an online survey tool (www.surveymonkey.com). The collector link was sent to 48 lead extraction experts via email. Results: A total of 43 answers were collected (89% return rate) from lead extraction experts in 16 different countries. A great majority (83.7%) of the respondents performed more than 30 lead extraction procedures per year. The most common procedural environment in this survey was the hybrid operating room (67.4%). Most procedures were performed by electrophysiologists and cardiologists (80.9%). Important additional members of the current lead extraction teams were cardiac surgeons (79.1%), anesthesiologists (95.3%) and operating room scrub nurses (76.7%). An extended Heart Team is regarded beneficial for patient care by 86.0%, with potential further members being infectious diseases specialists, intensivists and radiologists. Team training activities are performed in 48.8% of participating centers. Conclusions: This survey supports the importance of establishing lead extraction Heart Teams in specialized lead extraction centers to potentially improve patient outcomes. The concept of a core and an extended heart team approach in lead extraction procedures is introduced