Adverse effects of SVCI on CIED leads
RF application to the myocardium contiguous to CIED leads is needed to
achieve electrical isolation of the SVC in some patients with previously
implanted CIEDs; however, the general consensus of the Heart Rhythm
Society is that direct contact between ablation catheters and CIED leads
should be avoided.21 Potential interaction between
SVCI and CIEDs may include the following: pulse generator malfunction,
lead dislodgement during AF ablation, outer insulation damage, change in
impedance, pacing, and sensing parameters because of RF application to
the site closest to the leads. This study revealed no permanent pulse
generator malfunction; however, the effects of RF application on the
pulse generator, including noise reversion mode with asynchronous
pacing, oversensing of electromagnetic interference, and mode switch or
transient reset to elective replacement interval, have been previously
reported.22 Previous studies have shown atrial lead
dislodgement after catheter ablation of AF in patients with CIEDs and a
rise in the pacing threshold after atrioventricular node ablation in
these patients.23,24 AF ablation carries higher risks
of lead dislodgement when performing transseptal puncture or catheter
manipulation in the RA, compared with catheter ablation of arrhythmias
other than AF. In the present study, impedance rise was observed in 2
patients. The mechanism of a pacing threshold rise remains unclear;
however, micro-dislodgement or lead damage due to inductive current
might contribute to a pacing threshold rise. The dislodgement of leads
is a concern, especially given the current trend for fewer fluoroscopy
AF ablation procedures using a 3-dimensional mapping system. Therefore,
careful catheter manipulation on fluoroscopic imaging may be important.
A previous study involving AF ablation in 86 patients with CIEDs
reported atrial lead dislodgement in 2 patients with newly implanted
leads of <6 months.23 Distal tip
encapsulation within the myocardium has been reported to occur 2–6
weeks after implantation of leads.25,26 In our study,
the median period from CIED implantation to AF ablation was 71.5 months,
and the fluoroscopic time was significantly longer in the CIED group
than in the control group. As a result, there was no lead dislodgement
after SVCI. An adverse effect on lead insulation is another issue in
SVCI for patients with CIEDs because the myocardium, when achieving
electrical isolation of the SVC, might be close to the CIED leads. Lead
insulation damage is one of the most common reasons for defibrillator
lead failure.27 A previous in vitro study evaluated
the adverse effect of direct application of RF on pacing and
defibrillator lead function. In that study, CIED leads, including all
commercially available lead insulation materials, were tested. RF energy
was delivered at a maximum power of 50 W, with irrigated and
non-irrigated tipped catheters. Significant changes in lead function and
outer insulation were not observed.28 In another study
that assessed the effects of electrocautery on lead insulation
materials,29 lead insulation damage was shown to be
more common in polyurethane and copolymer leads. In our study, no
significant changes were found in lead parameters such as impedance,
pacing threshold, and sensing. Sensing noise was observed in 1 patient,
although whether RF application directly influenced lead insulation in
that case remains unclear. The outer insulation material of the lead was
silicone, which has been reported to be less susceptible to thermal
damage from RF application.29 Moreover, the reported
lead survival rate of the same model lead (Stelid BJ45D, ELA Medical,
Montrouge, France) was 100% at 4.5 years after implantation, and that
of ventricular leads (Stelid BT45D, ELA Medical, Montrouge, France) with
the same structure, other than the proximal electrode position, was 99%
at 20 years after implantation. Therefore, RF application might damage
the outer insulation of the leads, and an association between RF
ablations and sensing noises could not be completely ruled out, which is
in contrast to the findings in the above-mentioned previous studies.
There might be a difference between in vitro and in vivo studies.
Micro-cracking resulting from environmental stress and metal-induced
oxidation is known as outer insulation malfunction of leads implanted
for a long time. Another possible reason for the sensing noises may be
the unique structure of the lead. The lead (Stelid BJ45D, ELA Medical,
Montrouge, France) had 2 electrodes, and the proximal electrode was
positioned 70 mm from the distal tip (Figure 1B). RF energy might be
applied to the proximal electrode when performing SVCI. Therefore, the
safety of RF application to the CIED leads has been not fully guaranteed
in the clinical setting.
This study had some limitations. First, this was a retrospective,
single-center study. Second, the study population who had undergone both
SVCI and CIED implantation prior to SVCI was relatively small. Third,
the relationship between RF application and lead failure was not
determined. The occurrence of sensing noise and an impedance increase
might be compatible with lead degradation over time. Finally, the
durability of SVCI in patients with CIED was not determined because not
all study patients had undergone a second session.
Conclusion
SVCI could be achieved without lead failure and significant change of
lead parameters in most patients with CIEDs; however, the 8.8%
incidence of lead failure observed after SVCI should be noted. Careful
RF application is essential to avoid not only sinus node injury and
phrenic nerve damage but also lead damage for patients with CIEDs. In
addition, lead structures, outer insulation materials, and the position
of the leads or the defibrillator coil in the SVC must be carefully
examined prior to SVCI. Further studies with a larger sample size are
needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of SVCI for patients with
CIEDs in the clinical setting.
References
1. Terasawa T, Balk EM, Chung M, et al. Systematic review: comparative
effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial
fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:191-202.
2. Aleksandr V, Jeremy M, Nadav H, et al. Revisiting pulmonary vein
isolation alone for persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic-review
and meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm 2017;14:661-667.
3. Lin WS, Tai CT, Hsieh MH, et al. Catheter ablation of paroxysmal
atrial fibrillation initiated by non-pulmonary vein ectopy. Circulation
2003;107:3176-3183.
4. Ejima K, Kato K, Iwanami Y, et al. Impact of an empiric isolation of
the superior vena cava in addition to circumferential pulmonary vein
isolation on the outcome of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation. Am
J Cardiol 2015;116:1711-1716.
5. Li JY, Jiang JB, Zhong GQ, Ke HH, He Y. Comparison of empiric
isolation and conventional isolation of superior vena cava in addition
to pulmonary vein isolation on the outcome of paroxysmal atrial
fibrillation ablation. Int Heart J 2017;58:500-505.
6. Zhang T, Wang Y, Liang Z, et al. Effect of combined pulmonary vein
and superior vena cava isolation on the outcome of second catheter
ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol
2020;125:1845-1850.
7. Akoum N, McGann C, Vergara G, et al. Atrial fibrosis quantified using
late gadolinium enhancement MRI is associated with sinus node
dysfunction requiring pacemaker implant. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
2012;23:44-50.
8. Chang HY, Lin YJ, Lo LW, et al. Sinus node dysfunction in atrial
fibrillation patients: the evidence of regional atrial substrate
remodelling. Europace 2013;15:205-211.
9. Lamas GA, Lee K, Sweeney M, et al. The mode selection trial (MOST) in
sinus node dysfunction: design, rationale, and baseline characteristics
of the first 1000 patients. Am Heart J 2000;140:541-551.
10. Prabhu S, Taylor AJ, Costello BT, et al. Catheter ablation versus
medical rate control in atrial fibrillation and systolic dysfunction:
the CAMERA-MRI study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1949-1961.
11. Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D, et al. Catheter ablation for
atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2018;378:417-427.
12. Al-Khatib SM, Stevenson WG, Ackerman MJ, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS
Guideline for Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and
the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Report of the American College
of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice
Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol
2018;72:e91-e220.
13. Ejima K, Henmi R, Iwanami Y, Yagishita D, Shoda M, Hagiwara N.
Comparison of the efficacy of empiric thoracic vein isolation for the
treatment of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation in patients
without structural heart disease. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
2017;28:266-272.
14. Rordorf R, Poggio L, Savastano S, et al. Failure of implantable
cardioverter-defibrillator leads: a matter of lead size? Heart Rhythm
2013;10:184-190.
15. Kholová I, Kautzner J. Morphology of atrial myocardial extensions
into human caval veins: a postmortem study in patients with and without
atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2004;110:483-488.
16. Tsai CF, Tai CT, Hsieh MH, et al. Initiation of atrial fibrillation
by ectopic beats originating from the superior vena cava:
electrophysiological characteristics and results of radiofrequency
ablation. Circulation 2000;102:67-74.
17. Enriquez A, Liang JJ, Santangeli P, Marchlinski FE, Riley MP. Focal
atrial fibrillation from the superior vena cava. J Atr Fibrillation
2017;9:1593.
18. Chang KC, Lin YC, Chen JY, Chou HT, Hung JS. Electrophysiological
characteristics and radiofrequency ablation of focal atrial tachycardia
originating from the superior vena cava. Jpn Circ J 2001;65:1034-1040.
19. Tanaka Y, Takahashi A, Takagi T, et al. Novel ablation strategy for
isolating the superior vena cava using ultra high-resolution mapping.
Circ J 2018;82:2007-2015.
20. Goya M, Ouyang F, Ernst S, Volkmer M, Antz M, Kuck KH.
Electroanatomic mapping and catheter ablation of breakthroughs from the
right atrium to the superior vena cava in patients with atrial
fibrillation. Circulation 2002;106:1317-1320.
21. Crossley GH, Poole JE, Rozner MA, et al. The Heart Rhythm Society
(HRS)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Expert Consensus
Statement on the perioperative management of patients with implantable
defibrillators, pacemakers and arrhythmia monitors: facilities and
patient management. This document was developed as a joint project with
the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and in collaboration
with the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Society of Thoracic
Surgeons (STS). Heart Rhythm 2011;8:1114-1154.
22. Darrat YH, Morales GX, Elayi CS. The effects of catheter ablation on
permanent pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators. J Innov
Card Rhythm Manag 2017;8:2630-2635.
23. Lakkireddy D, Patel D, Ryschon K, et al. Safety and efficacy of
radiofrequency energy catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in
patients with pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators. Heart
Rhythm 2005;2:1309-1316.
24. Burke MC, Kopp DE, Alberts M, et al. Effect of radiofrequency
current on previously implanted pacemaker and defibrillator ventricular
lead systems. J Electrocardiol 2001;34 Suppl:143-148.
25. Bardy GH, Hofer B, Johnson G, et al. Implantable transvenous
cardioverter-defibrillators. Circulation 1993;87:1152-1168.
26. Furman S, Pannizzo F, Campo I. Comparison of active and passive
adhering leads for endocardial pacing. PACE 1979;2:417-427.
27. Kleemann T, Becker T, Doenges K, et al. Annual rate of transvenous
defibrillation lead defects in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
over a period of >10 years. Circulation 2007;115:2474-2480.
28. Darrat YH, Agarwal A, Morales GX, et al. Radiofrequency and
cryo-ablation effect on transvenous pacing and defibrillatory lead
integrity: an in vitro study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
2016;27:976-980.
29. Lim KK, Reddy S, Desai S, et al. Effects of electrocautery on
transvenous lead insulation materials. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
2009;20:429-435.
Figure legends