Comparison of outcomes in patients with abandoned versus extracted implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads

SummaryBackgroundDespite the increased number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients and the frequent need for device upgrading and/or occurrence of lead malfunction, the optimal approach to managing abandoned leads remains debated. Aims To determine the rate and type of complications related to either abandoned or extracted ICD leads. Methods Patients with abandoned or extracted leads were identified retrospectively. Patient medical records were reviewed to assess long-term lead or device malfunction, defibrillation test values before and after lead abandonment or extraction, and appropriateness of delivered shocks and subsequent surgical procedures related to devices or leads. Results A total of 58 ICD patients with 47 extracted and 34 abandoned leads were identified. After a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 2.6 years, the defibrillation test was not affected by either abandoned or extracted leads (23.4 ± 6.6 J vs 25.4 ± 4.9 J, respectively; P = 0.24). There were no differences in the number of ICD-related surgical procedures after extracting versus abandoning leads (22% vs 12%, respectively; P = 0.3) or in the thromboembolic event rate (7.7% vs 6.3%; P = 0.83). During follow-up, no differences in the occurrence of major complications or appropriate/inappropriate shocks were observed between patients with or without abandoned leads. Conclusion We observed no difference in rates of immediate or medium-term complications between extracting versus abandoning leads. Lead abandonment remains an alternative and safe option when extraction does not appear mandatory according to the age of the leads or experience of the operating centre

Primary prevention with a defibrillator: are therapies always really optimized before implantation?

AIMS:Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30-35% is widely accepted as a cut-off for primary prevention with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with both ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy supposedly on optimal medical therapy. This study reports evolutions of LVEF and treatments of patients implanted in our institution with an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death, after 2 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 84 patients with LVEF under 35% implanted between 2005 and 2007, 28 (33%) had improved their LVEF >35% after the 2 years of follow-up. During this period, even if Beta-blockers (98%) and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers (95%) were already initially prescribed, treatments were significantly optimized with improvement of maximal doses of beta-blockers and RAS blockers at 2 year follow-up compared with initial prescription (62 vs. 37% and 68 vs. 45%, respectively). In patients with improved LVEF, a trend toward a better treatment optimization and revascularization procedures (in the sub-group of ischaemic patients) were observed compared with non-improved LVEF patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study of patients with prophylactic ICD, one-third of them have improved their LVEF after a 2 year follow-up. Despite an optimal medical therapy at the time of implantation, we were able to further improve the maximal treatment doses after implantation. This study highlights the issue of what should be considered as \u27optimal\u27 therapy and the possibility of improvement of LVEF related to a real optimized treatment before implantation

Tachycardies ventriculaires réfractaires : quelle place pour la radiothérapie et comment ? [Refractory ventricular tachycardia: Is there a role for radiotherapy?]

Myocardial scar-related ventricular tachycardia is a serious and potentially life-threatening arrhythmia. The prevention of sudden rhythmic death and ventricular tachycardia recurrence relies on implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), anti-arrhythmic drugs and more recently on radiofrequency catheter ablation. Nevertheless, these approaches have their own risk of adverse events and complications, with a recurrence rate up to 50 % at 2 years. Stereotactic body radiotherapy, delivered in a single dose of 25Gy, has emerged as a new therapeutic tool in the management of highly refractory ventricular tachycardia. In 2017, the very first prospective 5-patient cohort suffering from recurrent ventricular tachycardia on structural heart disease (40 % of ischemic cardiomyopathy) who benefited from cardiac stereotactic body radiotherapy was published. After stereotactic body radiotherapy, the authors observed a strong ventricular tachycardia burden reduction at 12 months, with no major side effects. Since then, around 100 cases have been described in the literature, particularly in the prospective ENCORE-VT study, with positive short- and medium-term outcomes in terms of safety and ventricular tachycardia burden reduction. Recently, another American prospective 5-patient series, published in March 2020, mitigated these results since all patients presented a ventricular tachycardia recurrence at 12 months despite an initial reduction in ventricular tachycardia burden. This article describes the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy in refractory VT, the rationale of the technique, its implementation, preliminary results and potential acute and long-term consequences