A proportion of patients who undergo an initial lead extraction procedure will require a second, repeat extraction. Data regarding this clinical entity are scarce and neither the predisposing risk factors for, nor outcomes from, these procedures have been described previously. We sought to determine the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of repeat lead extraction.

AIMS:Cardiac perforations caused by pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are uncommon but potentially fatal events. The optimal approach to such cases is unclear. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal imaging modality and management strategy for cardiac perforation.METHODS AND RESULTS:All patients presenting to a single institution with cardiac perforation >24 h since implant between 2011 and 2015 were identified retrospectively. Assessment of the diagnostic performance of pre-extraction chest radiography, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), and computed tomography (CT) was carried out by blinded review. The method of lead extraction and any associated complications were examined. Eighteen cases of cardiac perforation were identified from 426 lead extraction procedures. Sixteen patients had abnormal electrical parameters at device interrogation. In all cases, the perforating lead was an active fixation model, and in four cases, this was an ICD coil. The accuracy of CT imaging for the diagnosis of cardiac perforation was 92.9%, with sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 85.7%, respectively. This was superior to both TTE (accuracy 62.7%, sensitivity and specificity 41.2 and 84.2%, respectively) and chest radiography (accuracy 61.1%, sensitivity and specificity 27.7 and 94.4%, respectively). Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) was performed in 17 patients, and a hybrid surgical approach in 1 patient. Of those who underwent TLE, there was 100% complete procedural success as per Heart Rhythm Society definitions.CONCLUSION:In the setting of cardiac perforation, CT is the imaging modality of choice. Transvenous lead extraction can be recommended as a safe, efficacious, and versatile intervention.

Background: Lead extraction procedures carry significant morbidity. A previously unrecognised sequelae of lead extraction and subsequent reimplantantion of devices is the need for further repeat lead extraction procedures. Methods: A database of 838 extraction procedures was reviewed (2001–2015) and cases of repeat extraction (RE) procedures identified. For analysis, the indication for extraction was dichotomized into infection and other lead problems (LP). Conclusions: Lead extraction procedures are complicated by the need for RE in 5.5% patients. There is significant midterm mortality where RE is required for infection regardless of the indication for IE.