Transvenous lead extraction: Efficacy and safety of the procedure in octogenarian patients.
ICD
elderly
lead extraction
octogenarian
pacemaker
procedural outcomes
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:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
received:
03
11
2019
revised:
09
02
2020
accepted:
02
03
2020
pubmed:
8
3
2020
medline:
12
6
2021
entrez:
8
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Managing elderly patients with infection or malfunction deriving from a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) may be challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in elderly patients. Patients who had undergone TLE in single tertiary referral center were divided in two groups (group 1: ≥ 80 years; group 2: < 80 years) and their acute and chronic outcomes were compared. All patients were treated with manual traction or mechanical dilatation. Our analysis included 1316 patients (group 1: 202; group 2: 1114 patients), with a total of 2513 leads extracted. Group 1 presented more comorbidities, more pacemakers than implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, whereas the dwelling time of the oldest lead and the number of leads were similar, irrespective of patient's age. In group 1, the radiological success rate for lead was higher (99.0% vs 95.9%; P < .001) and the fluoroscopy time lower (13.0 vs 15.0 min; P = .04) than in group 2. Clinical success was reached in 1273 patients (96.7%), without significant differences between groups (group 1: 98.0% vs group 2: 96.4%; P = .36). Major complications occurred in 10 patients (0.7%) without significative differences between patients with more or less than 80 years (group 1: 1.5% vs group 2: 0.6%; P = .24) and with no procedure-related deaths in elderly group. Mechanical TLE in elderly patients is a safe and effective procedure. In the over-80s, a comparable incidence of major complications with younger patients was observed, with at least a similar efficacy of the procedure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Managing elderly patients with infection or malfunction deriving from a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) may be challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in elderly patients.
METHODS
Patients who had undergone TLE in single tertiary referral center were divided in two groups (group 1: ≥ 80 years; group 2: < 80 years) and their acute and chronic outcomes were compared. All patients were treated with manual traction or mechanical dilatation.
RESULTS
Our analysis included 1316 patients (group 1: 202; group 2: 1114 patients), with a total of 2513 leads extracted. Group 1 presented more comorbidities, more pacemakers than implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, whereas the dwelling time of the oldest lead and the number of leads were similar, irrespective of patient's age. In group 1, the radiological success rate for lead was higher (99.0% vs 95.9%; P < .001) and the fluoroscopy time lower (13.0 vs 15.0 min; P = .04) than in group 2. Clinical success was reached in 1273 patients (96.7%), without significant differences between groups (group 1: 98.0% vs group 2: 96.4%; P = .36). Major complications occurred in 10 patients (0.7%) without significative differences between patients with more or less than 80 years (group 1: 1.5% vs group 2: 0.6%; P = .24) and with no procedure-related deaths in elderly group.
CONCLUSIONS
Mechanical TLE in elderly patients is a safe and effective procedure. In the over-80s, a comparable incidence of major complications with younger patients was observed, with at least a similar efficacy of the procedure.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
382-387Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Antonelli D, Freedberg NA, Bushari LI, Feldman A, Turgeman Y. Permanent pacing in nonagenarians over 20-year period. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38:48-53.
Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, et al. 16-year trends in the infection burden for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1001-1006.
Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL, et al. HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:503-551.
Zucchelli G, Di Cori A, Segreti L, et al. Major cardiac and vascular complications after transvenous lead extraction: acute outcome and predictive factors from the ESC-EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction ConTRolled) registry. Europace. 2019;21:771-780.
Kutarski A, Polewczyk A, Boczar K, Ząbek A, Polewczyk M. Safety and effectiveness of transvenous lead extraction in elderly patients. Cardiol J. 2014;21:47-52.
Rodriguez Y, Garisto JD, Carrillo RG. Laser lead extraction in the octogenarian patient. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011;4:719-723.
Bongiorni MG, Soldati E, Zucchelli G, et al. Transvenous removal of pacing and implantable cardiac defibrillating leads using single sheath mechanical dilatation and multiple venous approaches: high success rate and safety in more than 2000 leads. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:2886-2893.
Bongiorni MG, Segreti L, Di Cori A, et al. Safety and efficacy of internal transjugular approach for transvenous extraction of implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads. Europace. 2014;16:1356-1362.
Bongiorni MG, Burri H, Deharo JC, et al. 2018 EHRA expert consensus statement on lead extraction: recommendations on definitions, endpoints, research trial design, and data collection requirements for clinical scientific studies and registries: endorsed by APHRS/HRS/LAHRS. Europace. 2018;20:1217.
Kurtz SM, Ochoa JA, Lau E, et al. Implantation trends and patient profiles for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators in the United States: 1993-2006. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010;33:705-711.
Zucchelli G, Bongiorni MG, Di Cori A, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy after coronary sinus lead extraction: feasibility and mid-term outcome of transvenous reimplantation in a tertiary referral centre. Europace. 2012;14:515-521.
Bongiorni MG, Kennergren C, Butter C, et al. ELECTRa investigators. 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.
Kennergren C, Bjurman C, Wiklund R, Gabel J. A single-centre experience of over one thousand lead extractions. Europace. 2009;11:612-617.
El-Chami MF, Sayegh MN, Patel A, et al. Procedural outcomes and long-term survival following lead extraction in octogenarians. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;40:868-872.
Pelargonio G, Narducci ML, Russo E, et al. Safety and effectiveness of transvenous lead extraction in octogenarians. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23:1103-1108.
Esposito M, Kennergren C, Holmstrom N, Nilsson S, Eckerdal J, Thomsen P. Morphologic and immunohistochemical observations of tissues surrounding retrieved transvenous pacemaker leads. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63:548-558.
Fu HX, Huang XM, Zhong L, et al. Outcomes and complications of lead removal: can we estabilish a risk stratification schema for a collaborative and effective approach?. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38:1439-1447.
Segreti L, Rinaldi CA, Claridge S, et al. Procedural outcomes associated with transvenous lead extraction in patients with abandoned leads: an ESC-EHRA ELECTRa (European Lead Extraction Controlled) Registry Sub-Analysis. Europace. 2019;21:645-654.
Epstein AE, Kay GN, Plumb VJ, et al. ACT investigators: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator prescription in the elderly. Heart Rhythm. 2009;6:1136-1143.