Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between the characteristics of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) leads and subclinical cardiac perforations remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of subclinical cardiac perforation among various CIED leads using cardiac computed tomography (CT). METHODS: A total of 271 consecutive patients with 463 CIED leads, who underwent cardiac CT after CIED implantation, were included in this retrospective observational study. Cardiac CT images were reviewed by one radiologist and two cardiologists. Subclinical perforation was defined as traversal of the lead tip past the outer myocardial layer without symptoms and signs related to cardiac perforation. We compared the subclinical cardiac perforation rates of the available lead types. RESULTS: A total of 219, 49, and 3 patients had pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy, respectively. The total subclinical cardiac perforation rate was 5.6%. Subclinical cardiac perforation by screw-in ventricular leads was significantly more frequent than that caused by tined ventricular leads (13.3% vs 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in the incidence of cardiac perforation between atrial and ventricular leads, screw-in and tined atrial leads, pacing and defibrillator ventricular leads, nor between magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional and MR-unsafe screw-in ventricular leads. Screw-in ventricular leads were significantly associated with subclinical cardiac perforation [odds ratio, 4.554; 95% confidence interval, 1.587-13.065, p = 0.005]. There was no case subclinical cardiac perforation by septal ventricular leads. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical cardiac perforation by screw-in ventricular leads is not rare. Septal pacing may be helpful in avoiding cardiac perforation.