Safety of Lead Repair Compared to Lead Revision for Visible Lead Insulation Defects in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices deliver life-sustaining therapy and may be prone to hardware degeneration over time. Functioning transvenous endocardial leads with visible insulation breaks are amenable to lead revision (LRV) or lead repair (LRP), with medical adhesive. The latter is a less invasive and more cost-effective strategy. However, data are sparse on the overall safety of such an approach.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with lead insulation defects managed by either LRV or LRP with medical adhesive. The data analyzed were from January 2010 to January 2021. All-cause mortality, and both early and late complications, was ascertained for all cases.

Results

A total of 57 cases were identified, with a mean age (standard deviation) of 75 (±11.8) years; 18 (31.6%) were women. A total of 35 patients (62.5%) underwent LRV for an insulation defect, and 21 (37.5%) underwent LRP. There was no statistical difference in the rate of early and late complications between the 2 groups over a mean follow-up period of 1.15 (±0.78) years [3 (8%)] LRV vs 1 (5%) LRP, P = 0.88). One death was identified in each group, unrelated to either the device or a device-related procedure. There was no association between device type and the likelihood of LRP vs LRV as an attempted strategy (χ² = 2.25, P = 0.53).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the use of a lead-repair strategy, with silicone adhesive glue and an anchoring sleeve, is not associated with an increased rate of early or late complications, compared with lead revision in the management of visible lead insulation defects with stable lead function.

SUBMITTER: Fanous Y 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8712597 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature