Next Article in Journal
Pulmonary Functional Outcomes at 3 Months in Critical COVID-19 Survivors Hospitalized during the First, Second, and Third Pandemic Waves
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Term Outcomes of Transvenous Lead Extraction: A Comparison in Patients with or without Infection from the Italian Region with the Oldest Population
Previous Article in Journal
Glucose Levels of the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (oGTT) Can Predict Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Gestational Diabetes (GDM)
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Value of Left Ventricular Mechanical Dyssynchrony and Scar Burden in the Combined Assessment of Factors Associated with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Response in Patients with CRT-D
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/jcm12113710
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Systematic Review on S-ICD Lead Extraction

by
Riccardo Vio
1,
Enrico Forlin
1,2,
Viktor Čulić
3,4,
Sakis Themistoclakis
1,
Riccardo Proietti
5,* and
Paolo China
1
1
Department of Cardiothoracic, Vascular Medicine and Intensive Care, Dell’Angelo Hospital, 30174 Mestre-Venice, Italy
2
Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, 35128 Padua, Italy
3
School of Medicine, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia
4
Department of Cardiology and Angiology, University Hospital Centre Split, 21000 Split, Croatia
5
Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool L8 7TX, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(11), 3710; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12113710
Submission received: 24 April 2023 / Revised: 20 May 2023 / Accepted: 25 May 2023 / Published: 27 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Cardiac Electrophysiology and Pacing)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and purpose: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) have emerged in recent years as a valid alternative to traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs). Therefore, the number of S-ICD implantations is rising, leading to a consequent increase in S-ICD-related complications sometimes requiring complete device removal. Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to gather all the available literature on S-ICD lead extraction (SLE), with particular reference to the type of indication, techniques, complications and success rate. Methods: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to 21 November 2022. The search strategy adopted was developed using the following key words: subcutaneous, S-ICD, defibrillator, ICD, extraction, explantation. Studies were included if they met both of the following criteria: (1) inclusion of patients with S-ICD; (2) inclusion of patients who underwent SLE. Results: Our literature search identified 238 references. Based on the abstract evaluation, 38 of these citations were considered potentially eligible for inclusion, and their full texts were analyzed. We excluded 8 of these studies because no SLE was performed. Eventually, 30 studies were included, with 207 patients who underwent SLE. Overall, the majority of SLEs were performed for non-infective causes (59.90%). Infection of the device (affecting either the lead or the pocket) was the cause of SLE in 38.65% of cases. Indication data were not available in 3/207 cases. The mean dwelling time was 14 months. SLEs were performed using manual traction or with the aid of a tool designed for transvenous lead extraction (TLE), including either a rotational or non-powered mechanical dilator sheath. Conclusions: SLE is performed mainly for non-infective causes. Techniques vary greatly across different studies. Dedicated tools for SLE might be developed in the future and standard approaches should be defined. In the meantime, authors are encouraged to share their experience and data to further refine the existing variegated approaches.

1. Introduction

Since their development, Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) have been a fundamental part of the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) [1]. Although transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) are still the standard of care, their long-term use is associated with a variety of device-related complications, such as infections or lead displacement and rupture, in some cases requiring surgical revision or even the extraction of the entire device [2,3]. Subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) thus became a valid alternative to reduce the occurrence of adverse events related to the presence of intravenous leads, especially in young patients with a long life expectancy, normal heart, and no need for pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy, at increased risk of infections and with limited vascular access [4,5]. Since S-ICDs have consistently been proved to be effective in terminating malignant arrhythmias, the implantation of such devices is rising. In parallel with the growing number of S-ICDs implanted, there is an absolute increase in S-ICD-related complications (e.g., infection) that may require complete system removal [6,7,8]. Although transvenous lead explantation (TLE) is a relatively common procedure, with several approaches, dedicated tools and specific guidelines [9], S-ICD lead extraction (SLE) still relies on poor clinical data regarding its technical execution (with simple manual traction as the only established method), efficacy and safety [10,11]. This could be particularly relevant not only for the increasing necessity of extraction procedures, but also for the growing dwelling time of the S-ICDs implanted, typically associated with the development of fibrotic adherences and calcifications around the lead that could interfere with extraction [10]. Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to gather all the available literature on SLE, with particular reference to type of indication and the method used to perform the extraction.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

This systematic review was conducted and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations [12]. The systematic review was not registered.

2.2. Study Selection

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to 21 November 2022. The literature search used text and relevant indexing to capture data on S-ICD lead extraction. The search strategy adopted was developed using the following key words: subcutaneous, S-ICD, defibrillator, ICD, extraction, explantation. The string adopted for PubMed was (“subcutaneous” OR “S-ICD”) AND (“defibrillator” OR “ICD”) AND (“extraction” OR “explantation”). Only studies in English were included in the review. Studies were included if they met both of the following criteria: (1) inclusion of patients with S-ICD; (2) inclusion of patients who underwent SLE.

2.3. Data Extraction

Information was extracted from each included study regarding the (1) baseline characteristics of patients and country where the study was performed; (2) indications for SLE; (3) dwelling time; (4) technique used for SLE; (5) complications; (6) success; and (7) management after SLE. Two authors (R.V. and E.F.) independently extracted data from studies and entered them into the data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by discussion; if no accord was reached, it was planned that a third author (P.C.) would decide.

2.4. Quality Assessment

The JBI tool was used to perform the quality assessment of the included studies [13]. Supplementary Materials S1 reports how studies were rated.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

Our literature search identified 238 references (Figure 1). Based on the abstract evaluation, 38 of these citations were considered potentially eligible for inclusion, and their full texts were analyzed in more detail [10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. We excluded 8 of these studies because no SLE was performed [10,18,19,21,27,29,46,47]. Eventually, 30 studies were included [10,11,14,15,16,17,20,22,23,24,25,26,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,43,44,45,48,49].

3.2. Characteristics of the Studies

Overall, 207 patients were included in this analysis. One patient underwent SLE twice [43]. Of the 30 included studies, the majority (16/30) were retrospective cohort studies [15,16,17,22,23,26,30,33,36,37,38,41,43,44,48,49]. Five were prospective studies [14,31,32,34,35], and the remaining nine were case reports [10,11,20,24,25,28,39,40,45]. The number of patients included in the studies ranged from 1 to 1637. The full study characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

3.3. Indications for S-ICD Extraction

Overall, the majority of SLEs were performed for non-infective causes (59.90%). Among these, the occurrence of inappropriate shocks was responsible for 16.91% of total SLEs, necessity for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was responsible for 8.70%, progression of disease to heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation was responsible for 7.25% and sensing issues were responsible for 4.35%. Infection of the device (affecting either the lead or the pocket) was the cause of SLE in 38.65% of cases. Indication data were not available in 3/207 cases [17,22]. The full list of all the indications is reported in Table 2.

3.4. Dwelling Time

The mean time from implantation to extraction (i.e., dwelling time) of S-ICDs was 14 months, ranging from 30 days [37] to over 8 years [36]. The dwelling time was not available in 10 studies [14,15,16,20,22,23,32,35,38,44]. The majority of studies in which this information was reported showed a mean time of one year or less [24,26,33,36,39,43,45,48]. The dwelling time was particularly short in studies where infections were the indication for more than 50% of SLEs performed [31,36,37,43].

3.5. Method Used for SLE

In the studies analyzed, SLE required a two- or three-incision technique, depending on the way the lead was originally inserted and on eventual complications. The first incision was performed generally along the midaxillary line, in order to open the pocket and remove the pulse generator, freeing also the proximal part of the lead. The second incision was then executed on the region of xiphoid apophysis, fundamental to release the suture anchoring the lead and usually exploited as the access to extract the proximal and distal ends of the lead. An additional incision could be performed at the level of the manubriosternal junction in order to reach the distal coil of the lead, cutting eventual sutures that anchored it to the periosteal fascia or releasing it from fibrous tissue. Manual traction was then applied to unthread the lead, generally from subxiphoid access. In some cases, typically characterized by a long dwelling time, fibrosis of the tissues around the lead offered resistance to its removal, requiring the use of a mechanical sheath to relieve it [9,10,18,24,26]. This tool, originally designed for TLE, is manufactured to be slipped around the lead and then, with traction and counter-traction and simultaneous rotation, progressively advanced over the catheter. This technique allows the operator to dilatate and to break off fibrotic tissue along the lead, favoring its removal. Additional treatment could then be executed according to the S-ICD extraction’s indication (e.g., local antimicrobial treatment in case of pocket infection). The extraction technique was described in 11 studies [10,11,17,20,24,25,26,28,36,40,41], a minority of those included in this analysis. Among these studies, 7/11 were case reports [10,11,20,24,25,28,40]. Table 3 reports the methods used for SLE in our study population.

3.6. Complications and Success Rate

There were no periprocedural complications reported during SLE. This point was specifically addressed by the two included studies reporting the greatest numbers of SLEs [17,26]. Pothineni et al. reported that in their cohort of 64 patients who underwent SLE, no complications occurred [17]. The secondary endpoint of the study by Behar et al. [26] included procedural complications, and again, no procedure-related complications were reported.
Only 1 case of procedural failure occurred among the 207 reported because the lead could definitely not be extracted [26].

3.7. Management after SLE

Table 4 reports which management options were chosen after SLE, including the percentages of S-ICD or TV-ICD reimplantation.
Of note, in the study by Brouwer et al., one patient underwent a second S-ICD extraction after SLE during subsequent follow-up for recurrent infection [43].

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first systematic review on SLE.
According to our systematic review, the majority of SLEs are performed for non-infective causes (59.90%). These data differ from those for TLEs, which are performed mainly for infective causes (52.8%) [50]. Among the non-infective indications for SLE, inappropriate shocks accounted for the most part (16.91%). Moreover, sensing issues accounted for 4.35% of cases. Despite rare cases of undersensing of ventricular fibrillation [17], sensing issues usually include refractory oversensing due to myopotential, P- or T-wave oversensing or R-wave double counting [30]. Eventually, oversensing may lead to inappropriate shocks. Inappropriate shocks are a well-known drawback of S-ICDs, significantly affecting patients’ quality of life [51]. However, recent data showed a consistent reduction in inappropriate shocks by S-ICDs (3.1% in 1 year) with the use of high-rate cutoffs, as well as current generation electrogram filtering and discrimination algorithms [52]. Additionally, exercise tests before S-ICD implantation, especially in patients with Brugada syndrome, may further reduce the incidence of future inappropriate shocks [53]. Given all the abovementioned improvements, we can expect a decrease for such indications in future studies on SLE.
A necessity for resynchronization therapy or pacing is among other prominent causes for SLE. Even though it usually cannot be predicted at implantation, accurate selection of candidates for S-ICD implantation must be performed to minimize this possible scenario.
The dwelling time was very different in our systematic review on SLE compared to that reported for TLE. In fact, our study showed a mean time from implant to extraction of 14 months, compared to a mean dwelling time of 6.4 years in the ELECTRA study on TLE [50]. This discrepancy can be explained by several factors. First, in the studies included in our systematic review, many authors included patients in which the device was removed within a year and with simple manual traction; these procedures are better referred to as “explantation”, according to the terminology used for transvenous PM/ICDs. Other authors did not mention at all the dwelling time or the approach used for extraction, but we decided to include all studies in order to gather all the available literature in the field. Secondly, S-ICDs have been available since the early 2010s, whereas transvenous PM/ICDs were released on the market several years prior, and long-term follow-up data are available. Lastly, infections on transvenous PM/ICDs may occur as part of a systemic infection/bacteremia with the source of infection coming from a different site. In the case of S-ICDs, infections are primarily local and related to the implantation procedure; therefore, they tend to occur earlier. In fact, we found that the dwelling time was particularly short in studies where infections were the indication for more than 50% of SLEs [31,36,37,43].
Regarding techniques for SLE, simple manual traction is the easier way, and it was sufficient to remove S-ICD leads in many of the cases reported (99/207) (Table 3). However, this approach cannot always be pursued due to fibrosis surrounding the parasternal coil. According to our systematic review, in 14/207 cases, tools were used to complete a successful SLE. Patel et al. were the first authors to report the successful use of a rotating mechanical dilator sheath (TightRail, Spectranetics) for SLE [28]. Later on, Allison et al. replicated an SLE using the rotating mechanical dilator sheath (TightRail, Spectranetics), but also with the aid of a bulldog lead extender (Cook Medical) [20]. Migliore et al. reported the use of a non-powered mechanical dilator sheath (LR-TSS-11.0, Cook Medical) to disrupt fibrotic adhesions around the coil and the distal tip of the S-ICD lead [10]. The lead was then retracted into the sheath and successfully extracted in the absence of any complications. These studies highlight the absence of a common strategy and of dedicated tools for SLE, which might be developed in the future.
After SLE, a large number of patients (75/207) underwent TV-ICD reimplantation (Table 4). A minor part of the cohort underwent S-ICD reimplantation (25/207). Of note, one patient was extracted and reimplanted twice with an S-ICD because of recurrent local infection [43]. This event highlights the importance of a waiting period before reimplantation to allow complete healing from infection. In this scenario, wearable ICDs may act as a bridge therapy. In the study by Van der Stuijt et al. [23], the authors provided a patient with a wearable ICD after SLE for 3 months, allowing the resolution of infection with antibiotics before S-ICD reimplantation.

Limitation

Our study has several limitations. The results are based primarily on retrospective studies and case reports, and we acknowledge the risk of overlapping cohorts among different studies. Furthermore, as discussed above, no clear distinction was made between explantation and extraction, and all cases of S-ICD lead removal were collectively considered as SLE. Finally, we could not exclude possible bias due to overlapping cohorts between some of the included studies.

5. Conclusions

According to our systematic review, the causes for SLE are primarily non-infective, and the dwelling time seems to be lower compared to that in the literature data on TLE. Techniques vary greatly across different studies, including manual traction and the use of either rotational or non-powered mechanical sheaths. Dedicated tools for SLE might be developed in the future, and standard approaches should be defined. In the meantime, authors are encouraged to share their experience and data to further refine the existing variegated approaches.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12113710/s1. Supplementary Material: Quality Assessment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.V., R.P. and P.C.; methodology, R.V. and R.P.; data curation, R.V., E.F. and P.C.; writing—original draft preparation, R.V. and E.F.; writing—review and editing, R.V., E.F., V.Č., S.T., R.P. and P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Erika Borsetto for assisting in the preparation of the figure.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zeppenfeld, K.; Tfelt-Hansen, J.; de Riva, M.; Winkel, B.G.; Behr, E.R.; Blom, N.A.; Charron, P.; Corrado, D.; Dagres, N.; de Chillou, C.; et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 3997–4126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Olde Nordkamp, L.R.; Postema, P.G.; Knops, R.E.; van Dijk, N.; Limpens, J.; Wilde, A.A.; de Groot, J.R. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator harm in young patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of inappropriate shocks and complications. Heart Rhythm 2016, 13, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sacher, F.; Probst, V.; Maury, P.; Babuty, D.; Mansourati, J.; Komatsu, Y.; Marquie, C.; Rosa, A.; Diallo, A.; Cassagneau, R.; et al. Outcome after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with Brugada syndrome: A multicenter study—Part 2. Circulation 2018, 128, 1739–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lewis, G.F.; Gold, M.R. Safety and Efficacy of the Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016, 67, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chue, C.D.; Kwok, C.S.; Wong, C.W.; Patwala, A.; Barker, D.; Zaidi, A.; Mamas, M.A.; Cunnington, C.; Ahmed, F.Z. Efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A systematic review. Heart 2017, 103, 1315–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bardy, G.H.; Smith, W.M.; Hood, M.A.; Crozier, I.G.; Melton, I.C.; Jordaens, L.; Theuns, D.; Park, R.E.; Wright, D.J.; Connelly, D.T.; et al. An entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mesquita, J.; Cavaco, D.; Ferreira, A.; Lopes, N.; Santos, P.G.; Carvalho, M.S.; Haas, A.; Costa, F.; Carmo, P.; Morgado, F.; et al. Effectiveness of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and determinants of inappropriate shock delivery. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017, 232, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kaya, E.; Rassaf, T.; Wakili, R. Subcutaneous ICD: Current standards and future perspective. Int. J. Cardiol. Heart Vasc. 2019, 24, 100409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kusumoto, F.M.; Schoenfeld, M.H.; Wilkoff, B.L.; Berul, C.I.; Birgersdotter-Green, U.M.; Carrillo, R.; Cha, Y.M.; Clancy, J.; Deharo, J.C.; Ellenbogen, K.A.; et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm 2017, 14, e503–e551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Migliore, F.; Del Monte, A.; Kohlscheen, E. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction using non-powered mechanical sheath: A potential technique when simple traction is ineffective. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 22, e43–e44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ip, J.E. Technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator extraction. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2019, 30, 789–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Munn, Z.; Barker, T.H.; Moola, S.; Tufanaru, C.; Stern, C.; McArthur, A.; Stephenson, M.; Aromataris, E. Methodological quality of case series studies: An introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 2127–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gold, M.R.; Aasbo, J.D.; Weiss, R.; Burke, M.C.; Gleva, M.J.; Knight, B.P.; Miller, M.A.; Schuger, C.D.; Carter, N.; Leigh, J.; et al. Infection in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results of the S-ICD Post Approval Study. Heart Rhythm 2022, 19, 1993–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Giacomin, E.; Falzone, P.V.; Dall’Aglio, P.B.; Pittorru, R.; De Lazzari, M.; Vianello, R.; Bertaglia, E.; Tarzia, V.; Iliceto, S.; Migliore, F.; et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction: Safety, efficacy and outcome. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Russo, V.; Rago, A.; Ruggiero, V.; Cavaliere, F.; Bianchi, V.; Ammendola, E.; Papa, A.A.; Tavoletta, V.; De Vivo, S.; Nigro, G.; et al. Device-Related Complications and Inappropriate Therapies Among Subcutaneous vs. Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Recipients: Insight Monaldi Rhythm Registry. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 879918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Pothineni, N.V.K.; Cherian, T.; Patel, N.; Smietana, J.; Frankel, D.S.; Deo, R.; Epstein, A.E.; Marchlinski, F.E.; Schaller, R.D. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Explantation-A Single Tertiary Center Experience. J. Innov. Card. Rhythm Manag. 2022, 13, 4947–4953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Domenichini, G.; Le Bloa, M.; Carroz, P.; Graf, D.; Herrera-Siklody, C.; Teres, C.; Porretta, A.P.; Pascale, P.; Pruvot, E. New Insights in Central Venous Disorders. The Role of Transvenous Lead Extractions. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 783576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Palmisano, P.; Ziacchi, M.; Angeletti, A.; Guerra, F.; Forleo, G.B.; Bertini, M.; Notarstefano, P.; Accogli, M.; Lavalle, C.; Boriani, G.; et al. The practice of deep sedation in electrophysiology and cardiac pacing laboratories: Results of an italian survey promoted by the aiac (italian association of arrhythmology and cardiac pacing). J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Allison, J.D.; Sabeh, M.K.; Mela, T. Novel Use of a Rotating Mechanical Dilator Sheath for S-ICD Lead Extraction. JACC Case Rep. 2021, 3, 1415–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Russo, V.; Viani, S.; Migliore, F.; Nigro, G.; Biffi, M.; Tola, G.; Bisignani, G.; Russo, A.D.; Sartori, P.; Bongiorni, M.G.; et al. Lead Abandonment and Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation in a Cohort of Patients with ICD Lead Malfunction. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 692943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chung, D.U.; Tauber, J.; Kaiser, L.; Schlichting, A.; Pecha, S.; Sinning, C.; Rexha, E.; Reichenspurner, H.; Willems, S.; Hakmi, S.; et al. Performance and outcome of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after transvenous lead extraction. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2021, 44, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Van Der Stuijt, W.; Quast, A.F.B.E.; Baalman, S.W.E.; De Wilde, K.C.; Brouwer, T.F.; Wilde, A.A.M.; Knops, R.E. Complications related to elective generator replacement of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator. EP Eur. 2021, 23, 395–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gutleben, K.J.; Nelovic, V.; Pujdak, K.; Werner, M.; Osmani, I.; Kähler, J. Fracture of an S-ICD lead after two prior transvenous lead-related complications with conventional defibrillators. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2020, 43, 1491–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mitacchione, G.; Schiavone, M.; Gasperetti, A.; Viecca, M.; Curnis, A.; Forleo, G.B. Neglected lead tip erosion: An unusual case of S-ICD inappropriate shock. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2020, 31, 3322–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Behar, N.; Galand, V.; Martins, R.P.; Jacon, P.; Badenco, N.; Blangy, H.; Alonso, C.; Guy-Moyat, B.; El Bouazzaoui, R.; Leclercq, C.; et al. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Extraction: First Multicenter French Experience. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2020, 6, 863–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Black-Maier, E.; Lewis, R.K.; Barnett, A.S.; Pokorney, S.D.; Sun, A.Y.; Koontz, J.I.; Daubert, J.P.; Piccini, J.P. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator troubleshooting in patients with a left ventricular assist device: A case series and systematic review. Heart Rhythm 2020, 17, 1536–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Patel, K.; Tarantino, N.; Miles, J.; Zhang, X.D.; Gross, J. The first use of a rotating mechanical dilator sheath for S-ICD coil extraction. Heart Rhythm Case Rep. 2020, 6, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Higuchi, S.; Shoda, M.; Saito, S.; Kanai, M.; Kataoka, S.; Yazaki, K.; Yagishita, D.; Ejima, K.; Hagiwara, N. Safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extractions for noninfectious superfluous leads in a Japanese population: A single-center experience. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2019, 42, 1517–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Noel, A.; Ploux, S.; Bulliard, S.; Strik, M.; Haeberlin, A.; Welte, N.; Marchand, H.; Klotz, N.; Ritter, P.; Bordachar, P.; et al. Oversensing issues leading to device extraction: When subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reached a dead-end. Heart Rhythm 2020, 17, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schaller, R.D.; Santangeli, P.; Tomczuk, L.; Frankel, D.S. Use of a novel bipolar sealer device in pocket infections: A case series. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2019, 30, 1727–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Migliore, F.; Mattesi, G.; De Franceschi, P.; Allocca, G.; Crosato, M.; Calzolari, V.; Fantinel, M.; Ortis, B.; Facchin, D.; Zecchin, M.; et al. Multicentre experience with the second-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and the intermuscular two-incision implantation technique. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2019, 30, 854–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Migliore, F.; Viani, S.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Zorzi, A.; Silvetti, M.S.; Francia, P.; D’Onofrio, A.; De Franceschi, P.; Sala, S.; Corrado, D.; et al. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: Results from an Italian multicenter registry. Int. J. Cardiol. 2019, 280, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Orgeron, G.M.; Bhonsale, A.; Migliore, F.; James, C.A.; Tichnell, C.; Murray, B.; Bertaglia, E.; Cadrin-Tourigny, J.; De Franceschi, P.; Calkins, H.; et al. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients with Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy/Dysplasia: A Transatlantic Experience. J. Am. Heart Assoc. Cardiovasc. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2018, 7, e008782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Viani, S.; Migliore, F.; Tola, G.; Pisanò, E.C.L.; Russo, A.D.; Luzzi, G.; Sartori, P.; Piro, A.; Rordorf, R.; Bongiorni, M.G.; et al. Use and outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) after transvenous ICD extraction: An analysis of current clinical practice and a comparison with transvenous ICD reimplantation. Heart Rhythm 2019, 16, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nakhla, S.; Hussein, A.A.; Brunner, M.P.; Wazni, O.; Wilkoff, B.L.; Tarakji, K.G. Removal of subcutaneous defibrillator shocking coils: Lessons to learn for future extraction of subcutaneous defibrillator systems. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018, 41, 1341–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Quast, A.F.B.E.; van Dijk, V.F.; Yap, S.C.; Maass, A.H.; Boersma, L.V.A.; Theuns, D.A.; Knops, R.E. Six-year follow-up of the initial Dutch subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator cohort: Long-term complications, replacements, and battery longevity. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2018, 29, 1010–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sponder, M.; Khazen, C.; Dichtl, W.; Fiedler, L.; Mörtl, D.; Teubl, A.; Steinwender, C.; Martinek, M.; Nürnberg, M.; Schukro, C.; et al. Specific indications and clinical outcome in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)—A nationwide multicentre registry. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2018, 48, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Calcaianu, M.; Bresson, D.; Lévy, J. A Potentially Lethal Dysfunction of a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator: “The Phantom Menace”? Can. J. Cardiol. 2017, 33, 1066.e9–1066.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Morani, G.; Bolzan, B.; Tomasi, L.; Tomei, R.; Vassanelli, C. Pitfalls in electrogram interpretation: Subcutaneous cardioverter defibrillator malfunction in Brugada syndrome. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2017, 40, 1180–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Frommeyer, G.; Dechering, D.G.; Kochhäuser, S.; Bettin, M.; Köbe, J.; Eckardt, L.; Reinke, F. Long-time “real-life” performance of the subcutaneous ICD in patients with electrical heart disease or idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2016, 47, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Migliore, F.; Leoni, L.; Bottio, T.; Siciliano, M.; Ferretto, S.; Gerosa, G.; Iliceto, S.; Bertaglia, E. Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Safe and Effective Approach for Refractory Heart Failure. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2016, 2, 246–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Brouwer, T.F.; Driessen, A.H.G.; Olde Nordkamp, L.R.A.; Kooiman, K.M.; De Groot, J.R.; Wilde, A.A.M.; Knops, R.E. Surgical Management of Implantation-Related Complications of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2016, 2, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boersma, L.; Burke, M.C.; Neuzil, P.; Lambiase, P.; Friehling, T.; Theuns, D.A.; Garcia, F.; Carter, N.; Stivland, T.; Weiss, R. Infection and mortality after implantation of a subcutaneous ICD after transvenous ICD extraction. Heart Rhythm 2016, 13, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Frommeyer, G.; Dechering, D.G.; Zumhagen, S.; Köbe, J.; Eckardt, L.; Reinke, F. Limitations in S-ICD therapy: Reasons for system explantation. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2015, 104, 902–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Howe, A.J.; McKeag, N.A.; Wilson, C.M.; Ashfield, K.P.; Roberts, M.J. Insulation Failure of the Linox Defibrillator Lead: A Case Report and Retrospective Review of a Single Center Experience. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2015, 26, 686–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Calvagna, G.M.; Ceresa, F.; Patanè, S. Pocket infection as a complication of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Int. J. Cardiol. 2014, 177, 616–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Jarman, J.W.E.; Todd, D.M. United Kingdom national experience of entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator technology: Important lessons to learn. EP Eur. 2013, 15, 1158–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Theuns, D.A.M.J.; Crozier, I.G.; Barr, C.S.; Hood, M.A.; Cappato, R.; Knops, R.E.; Maass, A.H.; Boersma, L.V.A.; Jordaens, L. Longevity of the Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator: Long-Term Follow-Up of the European Regulatory Trial Cohort. Circ. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2015, 8, 1159–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bongiorni, M.G.; Kennergren, C.; Butter, C.; Deharo, J.C.; Kutarski, A.; Rinaldi, C.A.; Romano, S.L.; Maggioni, A.P.; Andarala, M.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; et al. The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) study: A European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Registry of Transvenous Lead Extraction Outcomes. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 38, 2995–3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Weiss, R.; Knight, B.P.; Gold, M.R.; Leon, A.R.; Herre, J.M.; Hood, M.; Rashtian, M.; Kremers, M.; Crozier, I.; Burke, M.C.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of a Totally Subcutaneous Implantable-Cardioverter Defibrillator. Circulation 2013, 128, 944–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gold, M.R.; Lambiase, P.D.; El-Chami, M.F.; Knops, R.E.; Aasbo, J.D.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Russo, A.M.; Deharo, J.C.; Burke, M.C.; Zitron, E.; et al. Primary Results From the Understanding Outcomes with the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients with Low Ejection Fraction (UNTOUCHED) Trial. Circulation 2021, 143, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Von Hafe, P.; Faria, B.; Dias, G.; Cardoso, F.; Alves, M.J.; Alves, A.; Rodrigues, B.; Ribeiro, S.; Sanfins, V.; Lourenço, A. Brugada syndrome: Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after exercise stress test. Rev. Port. Cardiol. (Engl. Ed.) 2021, 40, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 03710 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart of the literature search.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the literature search.
Jcm 12 03710 g001
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Author, Year of PublicationDesignStudy Population, CountryNo. of Pts Who Underwent S-ICD Lead Extraction
Gold 2022 [14]Prospective cohort study1637 S-ICD pts (Post Approval Study), U.S.5
Giacomin 2022 [15]Retrospective cohort study36 consecutive S-ICD pts after TLE, Italy4
Russo 2022 [16]Retrospective cohort study317 consecutive S-ICD pts (besides 290 TV-ICD), Italy1
Pothineni 2022 [17]Retrospective cohort study64 S-ICD explanted pts, U.S.64
Migliore 2021 [10]Case report1 S-ICD pt after TLE, Italy1
Allison 2021 [20]Case report1 S-ICD pt, U.S.1
Chung 2021 [22]Retrospective cohort study144 S-ICD pts, Germany11
Van der Stuijt 2021 [23]Retrospective cohort study72 S-ICD pts who underwent elective PGR, Netherlands1
Gutleben 2020 [24]Case report1 S-ICD pt with BrS, Germany1
Mitacchione 2020 [25]Case report1 S-ICD pt with DCM, Italy1
Behar 2020 [26]Retrospective cohort study32 S-ICD explanted pts, France32
Patel 2020 [28]Case report1 S-ICD pt with DCM, US1
Noel 2020 [30]Retrospective cohort study108 S-ICD pts, France6
Schaller 2019 [31]Prospective cohort study13 pts (3 PM, 9 TV-ICD, 1 S-ICD) presenting for CIED extraction due to infection, U.S.1
Migliore 2019 [32]Prospective cohort study101 S-ICD pts, Italy2
Ip 2019 [11]Case report1 S-ICD pt with ICM, U.S.1
Migliore 2019 [33]Retrospective cohort study44 S-ICD pts with AC, Italy1
Orgeron 2018 [34]Prospective cohort study29 S-ICD pts with AC, U.S./Italy3
Viani 2019 [35]Prospective cohort study229 pts who underwent TV-ICD extraction and subsequent S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation, Italy3
Nakhla 2018 [36]Retrospective cohort study21 pts who underwent Medtronic SQC extraction, U.S.21
Quast 2018 [37]Retrospective cohort study118 S-ICD pts, Netherlands10
Sponder 2018 [38]Retrospective cohort study236 S-ICD pts, Austria4
Clacaianu 2017 [39]Case report1 S-ICD pt, France1
Morani 2017 [40]Case report1 S-ICD pt with BrS, Italy1
Frommeyer 2016 [41]Retrospective cohort study24 S-ICD pts with electrical heart disease or idiopathic VF, Germany1
Brouwer 2016 [43]Retrospective cohort study123 S-ICD pts, Netherlands7 *
Boersma 2016 [44]Retrospective cohort study866 S-ICD pts, International1
Frommeyer 2015 [45]Case series93 S-ICD pts, Germany6
Theuns 2015 [49]Retrospective registry55 S-ICD pts, Europe/New Zealand5
Jarman 2013 [48]Retrospective registry111 S-ICD pts, U.K.10
S-ICD, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator; TLE, transvenous lead extraction; TV-ICD, transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator; PGR, pulse generator replacement; Brs, Brugada Syndrome; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; PM, pacemaker; CIED, cardiovascular implantable electronic device; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; AC, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy; SQC, subcutaneous shocking coils; pt, patient; pts, patients. * 1 pt underwent extraction twice.
Table
Table 2. Indications for SLE.
Table 2. Indications for SLE.
Indication for SLETotal Population, n = 207
Non-infective, n (%)124 (59.90%)
-Inappropriate shocks, n (%)35 (16.91%)
-Necessity for CRT, n (%)18 (8.70%)
-Heart transplantation/LVAD, n (%)15 (7.25%)
-Sensing issues, n (%)9 (4.35%)
-Lead/pocket erosion, n (%)8 (3.86%)
-Ineffective therapy, n (%)8 (3.86%)
-Necessity for pacing, n (%)7 (3.38%)
-Lead rupture, n (%)5 (2.42%)
-Defibrillation threshold testing failure, n (%)5 (2.42%)
-Patient discomfort, n (%)5 (2.42%)
-Lead malposition, n (%)4 (1.93%)
-Technical issues, n (%)2 (0.97%)
-Reel syndrome, n (%)1 (0.48%)
-Necessity for MRI, n (%)1 (0.48%)
-Premature battery depletion, n (%)1 (0.48%)
Infective (pocket or lead), n (%)80 (38.65%)
Not specified, n (%)3 (1.46%)
CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
Table
Table 3. Methods used for SLE.
Table 3. Methods used for SLE.
Method Used for SLETotal Population, n = 207
Manual traction, n (%)99 (47.83%)
Additional incisions, n (%)11 (5.31%)
Tools (sheaths), n (%)14 (6.76%)
Not reported, n (%)83 (40.10%)
SLE, S-ICD lead extraction.
Table
Table 4. Management after SLE.
Table 4. Management after SLE.
Management after SLETotal Population, n = 207
ICD reimplantation, n (%)102 (49.28%)
-S-ICD reimplantation, n (%)25 (12.08%) *
-TV-ICD reimplantation, n (%)75 (36.23%)
-Unspecified ICD reimplantation, n (%)1 (0.48%)
-Scheduled for S-ICD, n (%)1 (0.48%)
Heart transplantation, n (%)7 (3.38%)
Medically managed, n (%)1 (0.48%)
Declined reimplantation, n (%)13 (6.28%)
Not known, n (%)84 (40.58%)
-Lost to follow-up, n (%)5 (2.42%)
-Not reported, n (%)79 (38.16%)
ICD, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator; TV-ICD, transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator. * 1 pt was reimplanted twice.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vio, R.; Forlin, E.; Čulić, V.; Themistoclakis, S.; Proietti, R.; China, P. Systematic Review on S-ICD Lead Extraction. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3710. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12113710

AMA Style

Vio R, Forlin E, Čulić V, Themistoclakis S, Proietti R, China P. Systematic Review on S-ICD Lead Extraction. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(11):3710. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12113710

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vio, Riccardo, Enrico Forlin, Viktor Čulić, Sakis Themistoclakis, Riccardo Proietti, and Paolo China. 2023. "Systematic Review on S-ICD Lead Extraction" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 11: 3710. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12113710

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop