Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Device: The Impact of Systemic and Local Infection on Clinical Outcomes-An ESC-EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction Controlled) Registry Substudy

Simple Summary According to our analysis of the multicenter EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) Registry, about one-third of the candidates to complete removal of an implantable pacemaker/defibrillator because of device infection, through standard transvenous lead extraction, presents a systemic infection. Systemic infection is associated with a higher incidence of major in-hospital complications overall and a strong trend for procedure-related complications. Moreover, systemic infection is associated with increased procedure-related and non-procedure-related in-hospital mortality. Patients with cardiac implantable devices (CIED)-related infection with systemic vs. local involvement present different characteristics suggesting that in a relevant subgroup of patients the infection can be systemic from the beginning, without progression from CIED pocket. Background: Infections of cardiac implantable devices (CIEDI) have poor outcomes despite improvement in lead extraction (TLE) procedures. Methods: To explore the influence of CIEDI on the outcomes of TLE and the differences between patients with systemic (Sy) vs. local (Lo) CIEDI, we performed a sub-analysis of the EORP ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) Registry. Results: Among 3555 patients enrolled by 73 centers in 19 Countries, the indication for TLE was CIEDI in 1850: 1170 with Lo-CIEDI and 680 with Sy-CIEDI. Patients with CIEDI had a worse in-hospital prognosis in terms of major complications (3.57% vs. 1.71%; p = 0.0007) and mortality (2.27% vs. 0.49%; p < 0.0001). Sy-CIEDI was an independent predictor of in-hospital death (H.R. 2.14; 95%CI 1.06-4.33. p = 0.0345). Patients with Sy-CIEDI more frequently had an initial CIED implant and a higher prevalence of comorbidities, while subjects with Lo-CIEDI had a higher prevalence of previous CIED procedures. Time from signs of CIEDI and TLE was longer for Lo-CIEDI despite a shorter pre-TLE antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: Patients with CIEDI have a worse in-hospital prognosis after TLE, especially for patients with Sy-CIEDI. These results raise the suspicion that in a relevant group of patients CIEDI can be systemic from the beginning without progression from Lo-CIEDI. Future research is needed to characterize this subgroup of patients.