Transvenous lead extraction versus surgical lead extraction or conservative treatment for cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Propensity score-weighted analyses of a nationwide claim-based database.

INTRODUCTION: Infection is one of the most important complications associated with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy. The number of reports comparing the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), surgical lead extraction, and conservative treatment for CIED infections using a real-world database is limited. This study investigated the association between the treatment strategies for CIED infections and their outcomes.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 3605 patients with CIED infections admitted to 681 hospitals using a nationwide claim-based database collected between April 2012 and March 2018.

RESULTS: We divided the 3605 patients into TLE (n = 938 [26%]), surgical lead extraction (n = 182 [5.0%]), and conservative treatment (n = 2485 [69%]) groups. TLE was performed more frequently in younger patients and at larger hospitals (p for trend < .001 for both). The rate of TLE increased during the study period, whereas that of surgical lead extraction decreased (p for trend < .001 for both). TLE was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (vs. surgical lead extraction: odds ratio [OR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.70; vs. conservative treatment: OR, 0.45; 95% CI: 0.22-0.94) and lower 30-day readmission rates (vs. surgical lead extraction: OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06-0.56; vs. conservative treatment: OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13) in propensity score-weighted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS: Only 26% of patients hospitalized for CIED infections received TLE. TLE was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day recurrence rates than surgical lead extraction and conservative treatment, suggesting that TLE should be more widely recommended as a first-line treatment for CIED infections.