Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 963–974 | Cite as

Assessment of Cardiac Lead Perforation: Comparison Among Chest Radiography, Transthoracic Echocardiography and Electrocardiography-gated Contrast-enhanced Cardiac CT

  • Xiang Zhang
  • Chushan Zheng
  • Peiwei Wang
  • Dongye Wang
  • Boshui Huang
  • Guozhao Li
  • Huijun Hu
  • Zehong Yang
  • Xiaohui Duan
  • Shaoxin Zheng
  • Pinming Liu
  • Jingfeng Wang
  • Jun Shen
Cardiac

Abstract

Objectives

Cardiac lead perforation is a rare but potentially life-threatening event. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performances of chest radiography, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and electrocardiography (ECG)-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT in the assessment of cardiac lead perforation.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the ethics review board of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital at Sun Yat-Sen University (Guangzhou, China), and the need to obtain informed consent was waived. Between May 2010 and Oct 2017, 52 patients were clinically suspected to have a cardiac lead perforation and received chest radiography, TTE and ECG-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT. Among them, 13 patients were identified as having cardiac lead perforation. The diagnostic performances of these three modalities were evaluated by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves using a composite reference standard of surgical and electrophysiological results and clinical follow-up. The areas under ROCs (AUROCs) were compared with the McNemar test.

Results

The accuracies of chest radiography, TTE and ECG-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT imaging for the diagnosis of cardiac lead perforation were 73.1%, 82.7% and 98.1%, respectively. ECG-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT had a higher AUROC than chest radiography (p < 0.001) and TTE (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

ECG-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT is superior to both chest radiography and TTE imaging for the assessment of cardiac lead perforation.

Key Points

• ECG-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT has an accuracy of 98.1% in the diagnosis of cardiac lead perforation.

• The AUROC of ECG-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT is higher than those of chest radiography and TTE imaging.

• ECG-gated contrast-enhanced cardiac CT imaging has better diagnostic performance than both chest radiography and TTE imaging for the assessment of cardiac lead perforation.

Keywords

Heart injury Radiography Echocardiography Tomography, x-ray computed 

Abbreviations

AUROC

Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve

ECG

Electrocardiography

MPR

Multiplanar reformation

NPV

Negative predictive value

PACS

Picture-archiving and communication system

PPV

Positive predictive value

ROC

Receiver-operating characteristic curve

ROI

Region of interest

TTE

Transthoracic echocardiography

Notes

Funding

This study has received funding by Guangdong Province Universities and Colleges Pearl River Scholar Funded Scheme (2017) and the Elite Young Scholars Program of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital (grant no. J201403).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jun Shen.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University (Guangzhou, China).

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic study

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Todd D, Bongiorni MG, Hernandez-Madrid A et al (2014) Standards for device implantation and follow-up: personnel, equipment, and facilities: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey. Europace 16:1236–1239.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Brignole M et al (2013) 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 15:1070–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA et al (2013) 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 127:e283–e352.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e318276ce9b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burney K, Burchard F, Papouchado M, Wilde P (2004) Cardiac pacing systems and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs): a radiological perspective of equipment, anatomy and complications. Clin Radiol 59:699–708.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2004.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boriani G, Kranig W, Donal E et al (2010) A randomized double-blind comparison of biventricular versus left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Biventricular versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) trial. Am Heart J 159:1052–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2010.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellenbogen KA, Wood MA, Shepard RK (2002) Delayed complications following pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 25:1155–1158.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9592.2002.01155.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rajkumar CA, Claridge S, Jackson T et al (2017) Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic cardiac perforation caused by pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Europace 19:1031–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Refaat MM, Hashash JG, Shalaby AA (2010) Late perforation by cardiac implantable electronic device leads: clinical presentation, diagnostic clues, and management. Clin Cardiol 33:466–475.  https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.20803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirschl DA, Jain VR, Spindola-Franco H, Gross JN, Haramati LB (2007) Prevalence and characterization of asymptomatic pacemaker and ICD lead perforation on CT. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 30:28–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00575.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang XM, Fu HX, Zhong L et al (2014) Outcomes of lead revision for myocardial perforation after cardiac implantable electronic device placement. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 25:1119–1124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pang BJ, Lui EH, Joshi SB et al (2014) Pacing and implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead perforation as assessed by multiplanar reformatted ECG-gated cardiac computed tomography and clinical correlates. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 37:537–545.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.12307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balabanoff C, Gaffney CE, Ghersin E, Okamoto Y, Carrillo R, Fishman JE (2014) Radiographic and electrocardiography-gated noncontrast cardiac CT assessment of lead perforation: modality comparison and interobserver agreement. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8:384–390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2014.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewis RK, Pokorney SD, Greenfield RA et al (2014) Preprocedural ECG-gated computed tomography for prevention of complications during lead extraction. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 37:1297–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.12485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boxma RPJ, Kolff-Kamphuis MGM, Gevers RMM, Boulaksil M (2017) Subacute right ventricular pacemaker lead perforation: evaluation by echocardiography and cardiac CT. J Echocardiogr 15:188–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12574-017-0337-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jain N, Ravipati V, Kerut EK (2016) Late pacemaker lead tip perforation documented by chest CT. Echocardiography 33:1419–1421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.13310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nichols J, Berger N, Joseph P, Datta D (2015) Subacute right ventricle perforation by pacemaker lead presenting with left hemothorax and shock. Case Rep Cardiol 2015:983930.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/983930 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henrikson CA, Leng CT, Yuh DD, Brinker JA (2006) Computed tomography to assess possible cardiac lead perforation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 29:509–511.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00385.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merla R, Reddy NK, Kunapuli S, Schwarz E, Vitarelli A, Rosanio S (2007) Late right ventricular perforation and hemothorax after transvenous defibrillator lead implantation. Am J Med Sci 334:209–211.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31814254c5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yoshimori A, Kobori A, Michihiro N, Furukawa Y (2011) Delayed perforation of the right ventricular wall by a single standard-caliber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead detected by multidetector computed tomography. Korean Circ J 41:689–691.  https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2011.41.11.689 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirchgesner T, Ghaye B, Marchandise S, Le Polain de Waroux JB, Coche E (2016) Iatrogenic cardiac perforation due to pacing lead displacement: Imaging findings. Diagn Interv Imaging 97:233–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2015.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenberg S, Lawton J, Chen J (2005) Images in cardiovascular medicine. Right ventricular lead perforation presenting as left chest wall muscle stimulation. Circulation 111:e451–e452.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.494732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee AM, Engel LC, Shah B et al (2012) Coronary computed tomography angiography during arrhythmia: Radiation dose reduction with prospectively ECG-triggered axial and retrospectively ECG-gated helical 128-slice dual-source CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:172–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2012.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Schoepf UJ et al (2017) Radiation Dose Levels of Retrospectively ECG-Gated Coronary CT Angiography Using 70-kVp Tube Voltage in Patients with High or Irregular Heart Rates. Acad Radiol 24:30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rist C, Johnson TR, Müller-Starck J et al (2009) Noninvasive coronary angiography using dual-source computed tomography in patients with atrial fibrillation. Invest Radiol 44:159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181948b05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang Y, Zhang Z, Kong L et al (2008) Dual-source CT coronary angiography in patients with atrial fibrillation: comparison with single-source CT. Eur J Radiol 68:434–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiang Zhang
    • 1
  • Chushan Zheng
    • 1
  • Peiwei Wang
    • 2
  • Dongye Wang
    • 1
  • Boshui Huang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Guozhao Li
    • 1
  • Huijun Hu
    • 1
  • Zehong Yang
    • 1
  • Xiaohui Duan
    • 1
  • Shaoxin Zheng
    • 2
  • Pinming Liu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jingfeng Wang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jun Shen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial HospitalSun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial HospitalSun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Electrocardio Physiology and Arrhythmia, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial HospitalSun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations