Stepwise Approach for Transvenous Lead Extraction in a Large Single Centre Cohort.

cardiac electrical devices transvenous lead extraction

Journal

Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 13 11 2023
revised: 30 11 2023
accepted: 07 12 2023
medline: 23 12 2023
pubmed: 23 12 2023
entrez: 23 12 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Infection, lead dysfunction and system upgrades are all reasons that transvenous lead extraction is being performed more frequently. Many centres focus on a single method for lead extraction, which can lead to either lower success rates or higher rates of major complications. We report our experience with a systematic approach from a less invasive to a more invasive strategy without the use of laser sheaths. Consecutive extraction procedures performed over a period of seven years in our electrophysiology laboratory were included. We performed a stepwise approach with careful traction, lead locking stylets (LLD), mechanical non-powered dilator sheaths, mechanical powered sheaths and, if needed, femoral snares. In 463 patients (age 69.9 ± 12.3, 31.3% female) a total of 780 leads (244 ICD leads) with a mean lead dwelling time of 5.4 ± 4.9 years were identified for extraction. Success rates for simple traction, LLD, mechanical non-powered sheaths and mechanical powered sheaths were 31.5%, 42.7%, 84.1% and 92.6%, respectively. A snare was used for 40 cases (as the primary approach for 38 as the lead structure was not intact and stepwise approach was not feasible) and was successful for 36 leads (90.0% success rate). Total success rate was 93.1%, clinical success rate was 94.1%. Rate for procedural failure was 1.1%. Success for less invasive steps and overall success for extraction was associated with shorter lead dwelling time ( A stepwise approach with a progressive invasive strategy is effective and safe for transvenous lead extraction.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Infection, lead dysfunction and system upgrades are all reasons that transvenous lead extraction is being performed more frequently. Many centres focus on a single method for lead extraction, which can lead to either lower success rates or higher rates of major complications. We report our experience with a systematic approach from a less invasive to a more invasive strategy without the use of laser sheaths.
METHODS METHODS
Consecutive extraction procedures performed over a period of seven years in our electrophysiology laboratory were included. We performed a stepwise approach with careful traction, lead locking stylets (LLD), mechanical non-powered dilator sheaths, mechanical powered sheaths and, if needed, femoral snares.
RESULTS RESULTS
In 463 patients (age 69.9 ± 12.3, 31.3% female) a total of 780 leads (244 ICD leads) with a mean lead dwelling time of 5.4 ± 4.9 years were identified for extraction. Success rates for simple traction, LLD, mechanical non-powered sheaths and mechanical powered sheaths were 31.5%, 42.7%, 84.1% and 92.6%, respectively. A snare was used for 40 cases (as the primary approach for 38 as the lead structure was not intact and stepwise approach was not feasible) and was successful for 36 leads (90.0% success rate). Total success rate was 93.1%, clinical success rate was 94.1%. Rate for procedural failure was 1.1%. Success for less invasive steps and overall success for extraction was associated with shorter lead dwelling time (
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
A stepwise approach with a progressive invasive strategy is effective and safe for transvenous lead extraction.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38137682
pii: jcm12247613
doi: 10.3390/jcm12247613
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Auteurs

Axel Kloppe (A)

Department of Cardiology and Angiology at Marienhospital Gelsenkirchen, Academic Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum, 45886 Gelsenkirchen, Germany.
Department of Cardiology and Angiology at University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.

Julian Fischer (J)

Department of Cardiology and Angiology at Marienhospital Gelsenkirchen, Academic Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum, 45886 Gelsenkirchen, Germany.

Assem Aweimer (A)

Department of Cardiology and Angiology at University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.

Dominik Schöne (D)

Department of Cardiology and Angiology at Marienhospital Gelsenkirchen, Academic Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum, 45886 Gelsenkirchen, Germany.

Ibrahim El-Battrawy (I)

Department of Cardiology and Angiology at University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Department of Molecular and Experimental Cardiology, Institut für Forschung und Lehre (IFL), Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.

Christoph Hanefeld (C)

Department of Cardiology at Katholische Kliniken Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, 44791 Bochum, Germany.

Andreas Mügge (A)

Department of Cardiology and Angiology at University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Department of Molecular and Experimental Cardiology, Institut für Forschung und Lehre (IFL), Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.

Fabian Schiedat (F)

Department of Cardiology and Angiology at Marienhospital Gelsenkirchen, Academic Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum, 45886 Gelsenkirchen, Germany.
Department of Cardiology and Angiology at University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.

Classifications MeSH