Download PDF
Rofo 2015; 187(11): 1029-1035
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1553351
Vessels
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Venous Obstruction in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing First Implantation or Revision of a Cardiac Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Retrospective Single Center Analysis

Venöse Obstruktionen bei asymptomatischen Patienten vor Erstimplantation oder Revision eines Herzschrittmachers oder implantierbaren Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Eine retrospektive Single-Center-Auswertung
C. C. Pieper
1   Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Germany
,
V. Weis
1   Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Germany
,
R. Fimmers
2   Institute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Bonn, Germany
,
I. Rajab
3   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Bonn, Germany
,
M. Linhart
4   Department of Medicine-Cardiology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
,
H. H. Schild
1   Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Germany
,
C. P. Nähle
1   Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 January 2015

07 June 2015

Publication Date:
22 July 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the incidence and possible risk factors of upper deep vein obstruction in patients both prior to first cardiac device implantation and before device revision.

Materials and Methods: Records of asymptomatic patients undergoing contrast venography prior to implantation or revision of a cardiac device from 09/2009 to 04/2012 were reviewed. Venograms were used to determine the presence of venous obstruction. Interrelations between the incidence of venous obstruction and patient- or device-related parameters were identified using Fisher's exact test and univariate logistic regression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of venous obstruction.

Results: 456 patients met the inclusion criteria (330 males, 126 females, 67.8 ± 12.9 years). 100 patients underwent first implantation, and 356 patients underwent device revision (mean time since implantation 82.5 ± 75.3 months). Venous obstruction was present in 11.0 % and 30.1 % before implantation and revision, respectively. Only presence of ventricular escape rhythm was significantly related to venous occlusion (p < 0.001) prior to first implantation. Prior to revision, significant predictors were male sex (p = 0.01), time since implantation (p < 0.0001), presence of escape rhythm (p = 0.02), compromised coagulation (p = 0.02), phenprocoumon (p = 0.005), and peripheral arterial disease (p = 0.01).

Conclusion: Although several risk factors could be identified, reliable prediction of venous obstruction was not possible. Therefore, we advocate performing venography in all patients prior to device revision or upgrade to avoid complications. In cases of first device implantation, the risks associated with venography should be weighed against the surprisingly high rate of deep upper vein obstruction.

Key points:

• Prevalence of upper extremity deep vein obstruction is surprisingly high.

• Reliable prediction of venous obstruction is not possible.

• Contrast venography should be performed prior to device revision/upgrade.

• Before first implantation procedure-related risks must be weighed against high obstruction rates.

Citation Format:

• Pieper CC, Weis V, Fimmers R et al. Venous Obstruction in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing First Implantation or Revision of a Cardiac Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Retrospective Single Center Analysis. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 1029 – 1035

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Untersuchung der Inzidenz und möglicher Risikofaktoren von Obstruktionen der tiefen oberen Extremitätenvenen bei Patienten vor Erstimplantation und Revision von aktiven Herzimplantaten.

Material und Methoden: Daten von asymptomatischen Patienten, die sich zwischen 09/2009 und 04/2012 einer Erstimplantation oder Revision eines aktiven Herzimplantates unterzogen haben, wurden ausgewertet. Das Vorliegen venöser Obstruktionen wurde mittels Venografie untersucht. Zusammenhänge zwischen Inzidenz einer venösen Obstruktion und patientenbezogenen sowie geräteabhängigen Faktoren wurden mittels exaktem Fischer-Test und univariater logistischer Regression untersucht. Eine multivariate logistische Regression wurde verwendet, um unabhängige Prädiktoren einer venösen Obstruktion zu bestimmen.

Ergebnisse: 456 Patienten erfüllten die Einschlusskriterien (330 Männer, 126 Frauen, 67,8 ± 12,9 Jahre). Bei 100 Patienten wurde eine Erstimplantation, bei 356 eine Revision durchgeführt (mittlere Zeit seit der Implantation 82,5 ± 75,3 Monate). Venöse Obstruktionen wurden bei 11,0 % vor Erstimplantation bzw. 30,1 % vor Revision beobachtet. Ein Ventrikelersatzrhythmus war als einziger Faktor signifikant mit dem Auftreten einer Okklusion vor Erstimplantation assoziiert (p < 0,001). Vor Revisionen konnten männliches Geschlecht (p = 0.01), Zeit seit Implantation (p < 0,0001), Ersatzrhythmus (p = 0,02), beeinträchtigte Gerinnungssituation (p = 0,02), Phenprocoumontherapie (p = 0,005) und peripher arterielle Verschlusskrankheit (p = 0,01) als unabhängige Prädiktoren identifiziert werden.

Schlussfolgerung: Obwohl mehrere Risikofaktoren identifiziert werden konnten, ist eine verlässliche Vorhersage einer venösen Obstruktion nicht möglich. Wir empfehlen die Durchführung einer Venografie zur Vermeidung von Komplikationen bei allen Patienten vor Revision oder Aufrüstung eines Implantates. Vor Erstimplantationen müssen die Risiken einer Venografie gegen die überraschend hohe Rate an tiefen Armvenenobstruktionen abgewogen werden.

Key Points:

• Die Prävalenz einer Obstruktion der tiefen oberen Extremitätenvenen ist erstaunlich hoch.

• Eine verlässliche Vorhersage einer venösen Obstruktion ist nicht möglich.

• Eine Kontrastvenografie sollte vor jeder Implantatrevision und jeder Aufrüstung durchgeführt werden.

• Vor Erstimplantation sollten prozedurale Risiken gegen die hohen Obstruktionsraten abgewogen werden.

Key words

veins - angiography - obstruction/occlusion - implantable cardioverter-defibrillator - pacemaker - venography
 

  • References

  • 1 Muñoz FJ, Mismetti P, Poggio R. RIETE Investigators et al. Clinical outcome of patients with upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis: results from the RIETE Registry. Chest 2008; 133: 143-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Antonelli D, Turgeman Y, Kaveh Z et al. Short-term thrombosis after transvenous permanent pacemaker insertion. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1989; 12: 280-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sticherling C, Chough SP, Baker RL et al. Prevalence of central venous occlusion in patients with chronic defibrillator leads. Am Heart J 2001; 141: 813-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sakakibara Y, Shigeta O, Ishikawa S et al. Upper extremity vein thrombosis: etiologic categories, precipitating causes, and management. Angiology 1999; 50: 547-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Linhart M, Schwab JO, Bellmann B et al. Prevalence of asymptomatic upper extremity venous obstruction in 302 patients undergoing first implantation of cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2011; 34: 684-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Da Costa SS, Scalabrini NA, Costa R et al. Incidence and risk factors of upper extremity deep vein lesions after permanent transvenous pacemaker implant: a 6-month follow-up prospective study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002; 25: 1301-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Korkeila P, Nyman K, Ylitalo A et al. Venous obstruction after pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30: 199-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Haghjoo M, Nikoo MH, Fazelifar AF et al. Predictors of venous obstruction following pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: a contrast venographic study on 100 patients admitted for generator change, lead revision, or device upgrade. Europace 2007; 9: 328-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bulur S, Vural A, Yazıcı M et al. Incidence and predictors of subclavian vein obstruction following biventricular device implantation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2010; 29: 199-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Oginosawa Y, Abe H, Nakashima Y. The incidence and risk factors for venous obstruction after implantation of transvenous pacing leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2002; 25: 1605-1611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Maas R, Nicolas V, Mügge-Hamann U et al. Phlebography of the upper extremity. I. The technic and findings in 230 studies. Röfo 1995; 162: 33-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bracke F, Meijer A, Van Gelder B. Venous occlusion of the access vein in patients referred for lead extraction: influence of patient and lead characteristics. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003; 26 (08) 1649-1652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 van Rooden CJ, Molhoek SG, Rosendaal FR et al. Incidence and risk factors of early venous thrombosis associated with permanent pacemaker leads. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2004; 15: 1258-1262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lickfett L, Bitzen A, Arepally A et al. 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. Europace 2004; 6: 25-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Winters SL, Curwin JH, Sussman JS et al. Utility and safety of axillo-subclavian venous imaging with carbon dioxide (CO) prior to chronic lead system revisions. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2010; 33: 790-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kar AK, Ghosh S, Majumdar A et al. Venous obstruction after permanent pacing. Indian Heart J 2000; 52: 431-433
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kommareddy A, Zaroukian MH, Hassouna HI. Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. Semin Thromb Hemost 2002; 28: 89-99
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Oginosawa Y, Abe H, Nakashima Y. Prevalence of venous anatomic variants and occlusion among patients undergoing implantation of transvenous leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005; 28: 425-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Otten TR, Stein PD, Patel KC et al. Thromboembolic disease involving the superior vena cava and brachiocephalic veins. Chest 2003; 123: 809-812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bracke FA. Yes we can! But should we? Lead extraction for superfluous pacemaker and implanted cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Europace 2009; 11: 546-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 de Cock CC, Vinkers M, Van Campe LC et al. Long-term outcome of patients with multiple (> or = 3) noninfected transvenous leads: a clinical and echocardiographic study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000; 23: 423-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Costa R, Da Silva KR, Rached R et al. Prevention of venous thrombosis by warfarin after permanent transvenous leads implantation in high-risk patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2009; 32 (Suppl. 01) 247-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mandal S, Pande A, Mandal D et al. Permanent pacemaker-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: a series of 20 cases. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2012; 35 (10) 1194-1198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zuber M, Huber P, Fricker U et al. Assessment of the subclavian vein in patients with transvenous pacemaker leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998; 21: 2621-2630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chen JY, Chang KC, Lin YC et al. Pre-procedure duplex ultrasonography to assist cephalic vein isolation in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2005; 12: 75-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G et al. European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Heart Rhythm Association(EHRA). 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace 2013; 15: 1070-1118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar