Should they stay, or should they go: Do we need to remove the old cardiac implantable electronic device if a new system is required on the contralateral side?

Willy Weng; Pascal Theriault-Lauzier; David Birnie; Calum Redpath; Mehrdad Golian; Mouhannad M Sadek; Andres Klein; F Daniel Ramirez; Darryl R Davis; Pablo B Nery; Girish M Nair; Simon Hansom; Martin S Green; Alper Aydin

doi:10.1016/j.hroo.2022.02.005

Should they stay, or should they go: Do we need to remove the old cardiac implantable electronic device if a new system is required on the contralateral side?

Heart Rhythm O2. 2022 Feb 13;3(2):169-175. doi: 10.1016/j.hroo.2022.02.005. eCollection 2022 Apr.

Affiliation

¹ Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

Background: Ipsilateral approach in patients requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision or upgrade may not be feasible, primarily due to vascular occlusion. If a new CIED is implanted on the contralateral side, a common practice is to explant the old CIED to avoid device interaction.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess a conservative approach of abandoning the old CIED after implanting a new contralateral device.

Methods: We used an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze postimplant chest radiographs to identify those with multiple CIEDs. Outcomes of interest included device interaction, abandoned CIED elective replacement indicator (ERI) behavior, subsequent programming changes, and explant of abandoned CIED. Theoretical risk of infection with removal of abandoned CIED was estimated using a validated scoring system.

Results: Among 12,045 patients, we identified 40 patients with multiple CIEDs. Occluded veins were the most common indication for contralateral implantation (n = 27 [67.5%]). Fifteen abandoned CIEDs reached ERI, with 4 reverting to VVI 65. One patient underwent explant due to device interaction, and 2 required device reprogramming. Of 32 patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 8 (25%) had treated ventricular arrhythmia. There were no failed or inappropriate therapies due to interaction. Eighteen patients (45%) had hypothetical >1% annual risk of hospitalization for device infection if the abandoned CIED had been explanted.

Conclusion: In patients requiring new CIED implant on the contralateral side, abandoning the old device is feasible. This approach may reduce the risk of infection and concerns regarding abandoned leads and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Knowledge of ERI behavior is essential to avoid device interactions.

Keywords: Abandoned device; Cardiac implantable electronic device; Elective replacement indicator; Interaction; Simultaneous contralateral device.