Comparison of two types of rotational mechanical dilatator sheath: Evolution
extraction
lead
rotational
sheath
success
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
22
10
2018
revised:
02
05
2019
accepted:
19
06
2019
pubmed:
2
7
2019
medline:
8
8
2020
entrez:
2
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Powered extraction tools are usually needed in chronically implanted leads. Comparative data are essential among different rotating dilator sheaths. The aim of the study was to compare procedural/clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients underwent lead extraction utilizing two different rotating dilator sheaths. The current study was a retrospective review of consecutive patients at a single center. From December 2009 to August 2017, 163 lead extractions from 98 consecutive patients (median, 65 years; 71% male) utilizing a rotating mechanical sheath were analyzed for both efficacy (procedural and clinical success rates) and safety (adverse events). According to the type of the sheath used, the Evolution group (58 patients with 94 leads) and the TightRail group (40 patients with 69 leads) were determined. Extracted device was an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in two-thirds of patients. The majority of leads (87.7%) had passive-fixation mechanism. All ICD leads had dual-coil design. The median lead implant duration was 4 years, and no difference was found between the two groups. Infectious etiology was the main indication for extraction in 56.1% of patients. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the procedural success rate (96.6% vs 95.0%), clinical success rate (98.3% vs 97.5%), and total adverse event rate (5.2% vs 10.0%) between the Evolution and TightRail groups, respectively. Procedural success decreased with older leads and higher lead number. Procedural and clinical success rates utilizing both the Evolution and TightRail rotational extraction sheaths were high with low complication rate in chronically implanted leads.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1226-1235Informations de copyright
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, et al. HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:e503-e51.
Maytin M, Wilkoff BL, Brunner M, et al. Multicenter experience with extraction of the Riata/Riata ST ICD lead. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:1613-1618.
Wazni O, Epstein LM, Carrillo RG, et al. Lead extraction in the contemporary setting: the LExICon study: An observational retrospective study of consecutive laser lead extractions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:579-586.
Starck CT, Rodriguez H, Hurlimann D, et al. Transvenous lead extractions: Comparison of laser vs. mechanical approach. Europace. 2013;15:1636-1641.
Scott PA, Chow W, Ellis E, Morgan JM, Roberts PR. Extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: A single-centre study of electrosurgical and laser extraction. Europace. 2009;11:1501-1504.
Mazzone P, Tsiachris D, Marzi A, et al. Advanced techniques for chronic lead extraction: Heading from the laser towards the evolution system. Europace. 2013;15:1771-1776.
Hussein AA, Wilkoff BL, Martin DO, et al. Initial experience with the Evolution mechanical dilator sheath for lead extraction: Safety and efficacy. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7:870-873.
Sharma S, Ekeruo IA, Nand NP, et al. Safety and efficacy of transvenous lead extraction utilizing the evolution mechanical lead extraction system: A single-center experience. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:212-220.
Delnoy PP, Witte OA, Adiyaman A, et al. Lead extractions: The Zwolle experience with the Evolution mechanical sheath. Europace. 2016;18:762-766.
Aytemir K, Yorgun H, Canpolat U, et al. Initial experience with the TightRail rotating mechanical dilator sheath for transvenous lead extraction. Europace. 2016;18:1043-1048.
Bongiorni MG, Kennergren C, Butter C, et al. The European Lead Extraction ConTRolled (ELECTRa) study: A European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) registry of transvenous lead extraction outcomes. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2995-3005.
Witte OA, Adiyaman A, Smit JJJ, et al. Success and complication rates of lead extraction with the first- vs. the second-generation Evolution mechanical sheath. Europace. 2017;19:1717-1722.
Bongiorni MG, Zucchelli G, Soldati E, et al. Usefulness of mechanical transvenous dilation and location of areas of adherence in patients undergoing coronary sinus lead extraction. Europace. 2007;9:69-73.
Love C, Kress D, Al-Ahmad A, Gokoglan Y, Canby R. Multi-center experience with the spectranetics TightRail lead extraction system. Europace. 2016;18:i16.
Segreti L, Di Cori A, Soldati E, et al. Major predictors of fibrous adherences in transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:2196-2201.