Recanalization of veins occlusion in patients after implantation of antiarrhythmic devicesv

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25512/DIR.2019.13.1.05

For quoting:
Ayvazyan S.A., Sharabrin E.G., Palagina A.A., Gorshenin K.G., Buslaeva S.I., Seregin A.A. "Recanalization of veins occlusion in patients after implantation of antiarrhythmic devicesv". Journal Diagnostic & interventional radiology. 2019; 13(1); 45-49.

authors:

Ayvazyan S.A.

Sharabrin E.G.

Palagina A.A.

Gorshenin K.G.

Buslaeva S.I.

Seregin A.A.

keywords:

recanalization of occlusions

occlusion of access vein

antiarrhythmic device

Abstract:

Background: study presents data of recanalization of occlusions of access vein in patients after pacemaker implantation.

Material and methods: for the period of 2010-2018 a total of 461 patients underwent repeated antiarrhythmic device implantation. In 82(17,8%) patients we found malfunctioning leads. Total venous occlusion was found in 8(10%) cases. Attempt of recanalization was performed in 4 patients, in rest 4 cases recanalization was not performed, because of different reasons, and in 1 case it was unsuccessful.

Results: In 3 cases successful recanalization of venous occlusion and leads reimplantation were performed. In 2 cases - recanalization was performed using a guidewire and in 1 case a dilator for leads extraction was used. 5 patients underwent the contralateral implantation of a completely new system were performed.

Conclusions: recanalization of venous occlusion using a guidewire or a dilator is an effective method of treatment. These techniques allow to save contralateral access for other lifesaving procedures. However, recanalization using a dilator sheath might be associated with greater risk of complications such as perforation of subclavian vein, innominate vein or superior vena cava.

Thus, the choice of one or another strategy of recanalization is associated with technical difficulties and requires specialized tools and special skills of operating surgeon.

References

1. Stoney W.S., Addlestone R.B., Alford Jr. W.C., Burrus G.R., Frist R.A., Thomas Jr C.S. The incidence of venous thrombosis following long-term transvenous pacing. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1976; 22 (2): 166170.

2. Mitrovic V., Thormann J., Schlepper M., Neuss H. Thrombotic complications with pacemakers. International Journal of Cardiology. 1983; 2: 363-374.

3. Basil Abu-El-Haija, MD; Prashant D. Bhave, MD, FHRS; Dwayne N. Campbell, MD, FHRS; Alexander Mazur, MD; Denice M. Hodgson-Zingman, MD, FHRS; Vlad Cotar- lan, MD; Michael C. Giudici, MD, FHRS. Venous Stenosis After Transvenous Lead Placement: A Study of Outcomes and Risk Factors in 212 Consecutive Patients. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2015; 1-6.

4. Jose M. Marcial, MD, Seth J. Worley, MD, FHRS. Venous System Interventions for Device Implantation. Cardiac Electrophysiology Clinics. 2018; 10: 163-177

5. Haran Burri. Overcoming the challenge of venous occlusion for lead implantation. Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. 2015; 15: 110-112.

6. Lars Lickfett, Alexander Bitzen, Aravind Arepally. Khurram Nasir. Incidence of venous obstruction following insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. A study of systematic contrast venography on patients presenting for their first elective ICD generator replacement. EP Europace. 2004; 6: 25-31.

7. Mehrdad Golian, Minh Vo, Amir Ravandi, Colette M. Seifer. Venoplasty of a chronic venous occlusion allowing for cardiac device lead placement: A team approach. Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. 2016; 6: 197-200.

8. Marcio GK, MD, MSc, PhD, Ricardo Luiz Lima Andrade, MD, Gustavo Ramalho da Silva, MD, Hanry Barros Souto, MD. ICD Leads Extraction and Clearing of Access Way in a Patient With Superior Vena Cava Syndrome. Medicine. 2015; 38: 1-4.

9. Maytin M, Epstein LM, Henrikson CA. Lead extraction is preferred for lead revisions and system upgrades: when less is more. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2010; 3(4): 413-424.

10. Worley SJ, Gohn DC, Pulliam RW. Excimer laser to open refractory subclavian occlusion in 12 consecutive patients. Heart Rhythm. 2010; 7(5): 634-638.

11. Mathur G, Stables RH, Heaven D, Ingram A., Sutton R. Permanent pacemaker implantation via the femoral vein: an alternative in cases with contraindications to the pectoral approach. EP Europace. 2001; 3: 56-59.

12. Agosti S, Brunelli C, Bertero G. Biventricular pacemaker implantation via the femoral vein. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2012; 4: 289-291.

13. Elayi CS, Allen CL, Leung S, Lusher S, Morales GX, Wiisanen M, et al. Inside-out access: a new method of lead placement for patients with central venous occlusions. Heart Rhythm. 2011; 8: 851-857.

14. Auricchio A, Delnoy PP, Butter C, Brachmann J, Van Erven L, Spitzer S, et al. Feasibility, safety, and short-term outcome of leadless ultrasound-based endocardial left ventricular resynchronization in heart failure patients: results of the wireless stimulation endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) study. Europace. 2014; 16: 681-688.

15. Reddy VY Exner DV, Cantillon DJ, et al. Percutaneous Implantation of an Entirely Intracardiac Leadless Pacemaker. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015; 373: 1125—1135.

16. Worley SJ, Gohn DC, Pulliam RW, et al. Subclavian venoplasty by the implanting physicians in 373 patients over 11 years. Heart Rhythm. 2011; 8(4): 526-533.

17. Ozyer U, Harman A, Yildirim E, Aytekin C, Karakayali F, Boyvat F. Long-term results of angioplasty and stent placement for treatment of central venous obstruction in 126 hemodialysis patients: a 10-year single-center experience. American Jounnal of Rentgenology 2009; 193(6): 1672-1679.