Outcomes of Transvenous Extraction of Leads Older Than 20 and 30 Years-A Large Cohort Study.
effectiveness lead extraction
old lead extraction
old leads
safety of lead extraction
transvenous lead extraction
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 10 2022
30 10 2022
Historique:
received:
22
09
2022
revised:
27
10
2022
accepted:
27
10
2022
entrez:
11
11
2022
pubmed:
12
11
2022
medline:
15
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is limited knowledge on outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of leads being 20 and 30 years old. Retrospective single center large database analysis containing 3673 TLE procedures performed from 2006 to 2020 was analysed. We aimed to compare procedure complexity and the incidence of the TLE major complications (MC) in groups where extracted leads were under 10 years, 10-20 years, 20-30 years (old) and over 30 years (very old). Rate of removal of old and very old leads almost doubles with successive five-year periods (3-6-10%). In patients with old and very old leads there is an accumulation of risk factors for major complications of TLE (young age, female, multiple and/or abandoned leads, multiple previous procedures). The removal of old and very old leads was more labour-consuming, more difficult, and much more often required second-line (advanced) tools and complex techniques. Incidence of all MC grew parallel to age of removed leads from 0.6 to 18.2%; haemopericardium-from 0.3 to 12.1%, severe tricuspid valve damage-from 0.2 to 2.1%, need for rescue cardiac surgery-from 0.4 to 9.1%. Notably, there was no procedure-related death when old or very old lead was extracted. The percentages of clinical and procedural success decreased with increasing age of the removed leads from 99.2 and 97.8% to 90.9 and 81.8%. The risk of MC during extraction of leads aged 10-20 years increases 6.7 times, aged 20-30 years-14.3 times (amounting to 8.4%), and aged 30 and more years-20.4 times, amounting to 18.2%. Removal of ventricular leads is associated with a greater complexity of the procedure but not with more frequent MC. Removal of the atrial leads is associated with a higher incidence of MC, especially haemopericardium, regardless of the age of the leads, although the tendency becomes less pronounced with the oldest leads. 1. Extraction of old and very old leads is a rising challenge, since the rate of removal of leads aged 20-and-more years almost doubles with successive five-year periods. 2. Procedure difficulty, complexity and the risk of major complications increases along with the age of extracted lead. TLE is more time-consuming, difficult and much more often requires advanced tools and complex techniques. 3. TLE of old (≥20 years) or very old (≥30 years) leads can be performed with satisfactory success rate and safety profile when conducted at high-volume centre by an experienced operator under optimal safety conditions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is limited knowledge on outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of leads being 20 and 30 years old.
METHODS
Retrospective single center large database analysis containing 3673 TLE procedures performed from 2006 to 2020 was analysed. We aimed to compare procedure complexity and the incidence of the TLE major complications (MC) in groups where extracted leads were under 10 years, 10-20 years, 20-30 years (old) and over 30 years (very old).
RESULTS
Rate of removal of old and very old leads almost doubles with successive five-year periods (3-6-10%). In patients with old and very old leads there is an accumulation of risk factors for major complications of TLE (young age, female, multiple and/or abandoned leads, multiple previous procedures). The removal of old and very old leads was more labour-consuming, more difficult, and much more often required second-line (advanced) tools and complex techniques. Incidence of all MC grew parallel to age of removed leads from 0.6 to 18.2%; haemopericardium-from 0.3 to 12.1%, severe tricuspid valve damage-from 0.2 to 2.1%, need for rescue cardiac surgery-from 0.4 to 9.1%. Notably, there was no procedure-related death when old or very old lead was extracted. The percentages of clinical and procedural success decreased with increasing age of the removed leads from 99.2 and 97.8% to 90.9 and 81.8%. The risk of MC during extraction of leads aged 10-20 years increases 6.7 times, aged 20-30 years-14.3 times (amounting to 8.4%), and aged 30 and more years-20.4 times, amounting to 18.2%. Removal of ventricular leads is associated with a greater complexity of the procedure but not with more frequent MC. Removal of the atrial leads is associated with a higher incidence of MC, especially haemopericardium, regardless of the age of the leads, although the tendency becomes less pronounced with the oldest leads.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Extraction of old and very old leads is a rising challenge, since the rate of removal of leads aged 20-and-more years almost doubles with successive five-year periods. 2. Procedure difficulty, complexity and the risk of major complications increases along with the age of extracted lead. TLE is more time-consuming, difficult and much more often requires advanced tools and complex techniques. 3. TLE of old (≥20 years) or very old (≥30 years) leads can be performed with satisfactory success rate and safety profile when conducted at high-volume centre by an experienced operator under optimal safety conditions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36361063
pii: ijerph192114184
doi: 10.3390/ijerph192114184
pmc: PMC9655673
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Lead
2P299V784P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Europace. 2019 Apr 1;21(4):645-654
pubmed: 30624715
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Feb;11(2):e004768
pubmed: 29453324
Heart Rhythm. 2004 Jul;1(2):150-9
pubmed: 15851146
J Clin Med. 2020 Jan 28;9(2):
pubmed: 32013032
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Dec;14(12):e503-e551
pubmed: 28919379
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Nov 15;199:277-81
pubmed: 26218183
Eur Heart J. 2008 Dec;29(23):2886-93
pubmed: 18948356
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2021 Aug 05;17:445-459
pubmed: 34385818
J Clin Med. 2022 Aug 19;11(16):
pubmed: 36013123
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jan 21;63(2):133-40
pubmed: 24140671
Heart Rhythm. 2022 Jul;19(7):1158-1164
pubmed: 35257976
Europace. 2018 Jul 1;20(7):1217
pubmed: 29566158
Heart Rhythm. 2014 May;11(5):799-805
pubmed: 24444444
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999 Sep;22(9):1348-57
pubmed: 10527016
Europace. 2020 Sep 1;22(9):1401-1408
pubmed: 32681177
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016 Sep;9(9):
pubmed: 27625167
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;42(7):1006-1017
pubmed: 31046136
Kardiol Pol. 2016;74(11):1357
pubmed: 27910081
Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2018 Jan;46(1):54-56
pubmed: 29339692
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021 Apr 8;32(3):402-407
pubmed: 33257960
Circulation. 2013 Jun 18;127(24):2393-402
pubmed: 23694966
Heart Rhythm. 2009 Jul;6(7):1085-104
pubmed: 19560098
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Jan;45(1):92-102
pubmed: 34699079
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Apr;16(4):579-580
pubmed: 30419353
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;42(7):998-1005
pubmed: 31045256
Europace. 2017 Dec 01;19(12):2042-2046
pubmed: 28430911
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Apr;43(4):382-387
pubmed: 32144936
Europace. 2018 Aug 1;20(8):1324-1333
pubmed: 29016781
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Mar;44(3):481-489
pubmed: 33393087
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Aug;44(8):1464-1465
pubmed: 33763893
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2022 Jul;33(7):1357-1365
pubmed: 35474258
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Feb 9;55(6):579-86
pubmed: 20152562
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015 Dec;38(12):1439-47
pubmed: 26293652
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007 Feb;88(2):128-33
pubmed: 17384828
Eur Heart J. 2017 Oct 21;38(40):2995-3005
pubmed: 28369414
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Jan;3(1):1-9
pubmed: 29759687
Cardiol J. 2014;21(4):419-24
pubmed: 24142680
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021 Nov;32(11):3042-3048
pubmed: 34453369
Europace. 2020 Jul 1;22(7):1103-1110
pubmed: 32447388
Heart Rhythm. 2022 Jul;19(7):1097-1103
pubmed: 34695576