ClinicalDevicesLead-related superior vena cava syndrome: Management and outcomes
Introduction
Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a rare condition that can severely affect a patient’s daily functioning and quality of life. Patients present with morning facial edema, bilateral upper extremity swelling, and recurrent headaches due to impaired venous return. Historically, most cases of SVC syndrome have been associated with malignant carcinomas and poor outcomes. However, in the past 2–3 decades, there has been an increase in nonmalignant etiologies of this condition—largely attributable to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). In these patients, stenosis is thought to develop as an inflammatory reaction to a lead making contact with the vein endothelium.1
Although up to 33% of patients with cardiac devices develop some degree of SVC stenosis, clinical symptoms rarely develop. The prevalence of SVC syndrome is estimated to be between 0.6% and 3.5%.2,3 The etiology is not yet fully understood, however there is consensus that the presence of multiple leads is one of the strongest risk factors for the development of symptoms. When symptoms do occur, they present months to years after device implantation.4 A meta-analysis by Riley et al5 of 104 patients who developed SVC syndrome found the median time to onset of symptoms to be 48 months.
SVC syndrome compromises the patency of access veins and complicates device management. The need to maintain luminal patency is particularly important in younger patients who may require multiple device upgrades in years to come. According to the 2017 Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) expert consensus,6 lead removal is a level 1 recommendation for patients with symptomatic SVC stenosis. To date, no clinical trials have investigated the effectiveness of various interventions on symptom resolution and long-term luminal patency. Thus, there are few guidelines for physicians to consult when managing these patients. In this article, we review the literature and report our findings associated with balloon angioplasty and lead extraction on the management of these patients.
Section snippets
Methods
We collected data from January 2003 to November 2019 on all patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE) at a single tertiary cardiovascular center in Miami, FL. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. For each case, pertinent data including demographic information, patient history, device type, procedural information, complications, and success were recorded. Our study population consists of the 17 patients referred to our center for symptomatic SVC stenosis.
Registry population
Our cohort consisted of the 17 patients who met both the clinical and radiological diagnoses of SVC syndrome between 2003 and 2019. All patients had >90% stenosis of the SVC. Per the Stanford classification system, all 17 patients had type 2 SVC occlusions.7
Thirteen of our patients underwent percutaneous lead extraction and venoplasty. One patient required surgical SVC correction because of the presence of multiple leads that were occluding the azygous vein. Three patients underwent venoplasty
Discussion
There are currently few guidelines for the management of device-induced SVC syndrome. Before the development of percutaneous interventions, surgical extraction was the primary management modality for problematic leads. Surgical techniques are associated with high rates of occlusion recurrence and significant morbidity/mortality and have fallen out of favor to percutaneous approaches.8 Occlusion recurrence for surgery is estimated to be 12%, while recurrence for percutaneous intervention is
Conclusion
This study finds that venoplasty with lead extraction is safe and effective for maintaining lumen patency at 6 and 12 months for patients with pacemaker/ICD lead-induced SVC syndrome.
References (35)
- et al.
The incidence of venous thrombosis following long-term transvenous pacing
Ann Thorac Sur
(1976) - et al.
2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction
Heart Rhythm
(2017) - et al.
Superior vena cava syndrome caused by pacemaker leads
Ann Thorac Surg
(2016) Review of central venous disease in hemodialysis patients
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2010)- et al.
CT angiography of the superior vena cava: normative values and implications for central venous catheter position
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2007) - et al.
Superior vena cava occlusion and/or syndrome related to pacemaker leads
Am Heart J
(1993) - et al.
Pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome with successful treatment by balloon venoplasty
Am J Cardiol
(1996) - et al.
Venous stenting as treatment for pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome
Am Heart J
(1995) - et al.
Venous stenosis after transvenous lead placement: a study of outcomes and risk factors in 212 consecutive patients
J Am Heart Assoc
(2015) - et al.
Surgical management of superior vena cava syndrome following pacemaker lead infection: a case report and review of the literature
J Cardiothorac Surg
(2014)
Incidence and risk factors of early venous thrombosis associated with permanent pacemaker leads
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Managing superior vena cava syndrome as a complication of pacemaker implantation: a pooled analysis of clinical practice
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
A case of arterial and venous tear during single lead extraction
Case Rep Cardiol
Outcome and management of pacemaker-induced superior vena cava syndrome
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock after stenting across the device leads
Tex Heart Inst J
Cited by (8)
Percutaneous management of superior vena cava syndrome in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices
2021, Heart RhythmCitation Excerpt :A pooled analysis suggested that the recurrence rate for stenting was as low as 5% over a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 2–60 months).8 More recent data reported by Arora and Carrillo34 in a series involving 17 patients, of whom 13 were managed with TLE, revealed that all patients remained symptom free at 12 months of follow-up. Our recurrence rate of 25% is similar to the above studies; however, our median follow-up of 5.5 years (IQR 2.0–8.5 years) is notably longer than what has been reported previously.
Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 2—imaging after device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC
2024, European Heart Journal Cardiovascular ImagingRecurrent Transient Ischemic Attacks in a Patient with Multiple Pacemaker Leads
2023, Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm ManagementPacemaker-associated superior vena cava syndrome: Role of contrast echocardiography
2022, Echocardiography
Funding sources: The authors have no funding sources to disclose.
Disclosures: Dr Carrillo has served as a consultant to Spectranetics (Philips), has received a research grant from St. Jude Medical (Abbot), and has served on the speakers bureau for Medtronic, St. Jude Medical (Abbot), and the Sorin Group (MicroPort). Mr Arora reports no conflicts of interest.