Pacemaker Lead Failure due to Subclavian Crush Syndrome: A Case Report
Authors/Creators
- 1. Heart Centre, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Description
Background: Lead insulation failure or lead fracture due to crush injury is one of the potential complications of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. It usually occurs after medial intrathoracic puncture of the subclavian vein and results in damaging of the lead body by entrapment within the costoclavicular ligament and/or the subclavian muscle.We are presenting a case of a pacemaker lead failure due to subclavian crush syndrome that occurred twice, and it led to the acquisition of new pacing lead entry site.
Case: A 50-year-old male patient with a history of symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome. He was a manual worker and right-handed. He underwent dual chamber pacemaker implantation initially in the left pectoral area, but it was removed a year later due to infection complicating traumatic hematoma to the pacemaker pocket. He underwent implantation of a new pacemaker system on the right side with leads insertion through a percutaneous right subclavian vein puncture (SVP). He developed right atrial (RA) lead failure about 11 years later due to subclavian crush syndrome. He underwent a new RA lead implantation from the same site. He again had an RA lead malfunction about two years later due to the same mechanism. He eventually underwent a new pacemaker system implantation via the right cephalic vein.
Discussion: The cardiac pacing leads are prone to dislodgement, insulation failure, and conductor fracture. Lead fractures are seen with an incidence rate of 0.1 to 4.2% per patientyear. The cephalic vein cut down (CVC) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) approaches show better long-term efficacy and lower lead complication rates than the SVP approach for permanent pacemaker implantation.
Conclusion: Subclavian crush syndrome is one of the recognized causes of CIEDs lead failure, and it occurs mostly with SVP. Alternative approaches such as CVC down and AVP have been associated with better outcomes and fewer incidences of subclavian crush syndrome in comparison with the SVP approach.
Notes
Files
IJCMC-2-115.pdf
Files
(1.7 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:de9a529828f492418b87371a962c5a3d
|
1.7 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Related works
- Is published in
- Journal article: https://www.boffinaccess.com/clinical-and-medical-cases/pacemaker-lead-failure-2-115/IJCMC-2-115.pdf (URL)
- Journal article: https://www.boffinaccess.com/clinical-and-medical-cases/pacemaker-lead-failure-2-115 (URL)
References
- Magney JE, Flynn DM, Parsons JA, Staplin DH, Chin-Purcell MV,et al. Anatomical mechanisms explaining damage to pacemaker leads, defibrillator leads, and failure of central venous catheters adjacent to the sternoclavicular joint. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol1993;16:445-457.
- Altun A, Erdogan O. Pacemaker lead failure suggestive of crush injury. Cardiol Rev. 2003;11(5):256.
- Alt E, Völker R, Blömer H. Lead fracture in pacemaker patients. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1987 Apr;35(2):101-104.
- Bongiorni MG, Proclemer A, Dobreanu D, Marinskis G, Pison L,et al. Preferred tools and techniques for implantation of cardiac electronic devices in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace. 2013 Nov;15(11):1664-1668.
- Chauhan A, Grace AA, Newell SA, Stone DL, Shapiro LM, et al. Early complications after dual chamber versus single chamber pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1994Nov;17(11 Pt 2):2012-2015.
- Benz AP, Vamos M, Erath JW, Hohnloser SH. Cephalic vs. subclavian lead implantation in cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace. 2019Jan;21(1):121-129.
- Belott P. How to access the axillary vein. Heart Rhythm. 2006Mar;3(3):366-369.
- Kim KH, Park KM, Nam GB, Kim DK, Oh M, et al. Comparison of the axillary venous approach and subclavian venous approach for efficacy of permanent pacemaker implantation. 8-Year follow-up results. Circ J. 2014;78(4):865-871.
- Liu P, Zhou YF, Yang P, Gao YS, Zhao GR, et al. Optimized axillaryvein technique versus subclavian vein technique in cardiovas cularimplan table electronic device implantation: a randomized controlled study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016 Nov 20;129(22):2647-2651.
- Maytin M, Epstein LM, Henrikson CA. Lead extraction is preferred for lead revisions and system upgrades when less is more. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Aug;3(4):413-424.