Literature DB >> 20642712

Extraction of cardiac rhythm devices: indications, techniques and outcomes for the removal of pacemaker and defibrillator leads.

F M Farooqi1, S Talsania, S Hamid, C A Rinaldi.   

Abstract

Cardiac rhythm management devices (pacemakers) are being increasingly implanted worldwide not only for symptomatic bradycardia, but also for the management of arrhythmia and heart failure. Their use in more elderly patients with significant comorbidities is rising steeply and consequently long-term complications are increasingly arising. Such an increase in device therapy is being paralleled by an increase in the requirement for system extraction. Safe lead extraction is central to the management of much of the complications related to pacemakers. The most common indication for lead extraction is system infection Adhesions in chronically implanted leads can become major obstacles to safe lead extraction and life-threatening bleeding and cardiac perforations may occur. Over the last 20 years, specific tools and techniques for transvenous lead extraction have been developed to assist in freeing the lead body from the adhesions. This article provides a comprehensive review of the indications, tools, techniques and outcomes for transvenous lead extraction. The success rate largely depends on the time from implant. Up to 12 months from implant, it is rare that traction alone will not suffice. For longer lead implant duration, no single technique is sufficient to address all extractions, but laser provides the best chance of extracting the entire lead. Operator experience is vital in determining success as familiarity of a wide array of techniques will increase the likelihood of uncomplicated extraction. Long implantation time, lack of operator experience, ICD lead type and female gender are risk factors for life-threatening complications. Lead extraction should therefore, ideally be performed in high volume centres with experienced staff and on-site support from a cardiothoracic surgical team able to deal with bleeding complications from cardiovascular perforation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20642712     DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02338.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pract        ISSN: 1368-5031            Impact factor:   2.503


  23 in total

Review 1.  Dual- versus single-coil implantable defibrillator leads: review of the literature.

Authors:  Jörg Neuzner; Jörg Carlsson
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Re-evaluation of transvenous lead extraction with modified standard technique: a prospective study in 229 patients.

Authors:  Xian-Ming Chu; Xue-Bin Li; Ping Zhang; Long Wang; Ding Li; Jiang-Bo Duan; Bing Li; Ji-Hong Guo
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2013-10-20

3.  Percutaneous removal of transvenous pacemaker leads using an extraction device.

Authors:  Navreet Singh; Vijay Langer; D S Chadha; A K Ghosh; Sanjeev Sengupta; Ravneesh Gupta; J S Dugal
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2012-09-10

Review 4.  Surgical management of cardiac implantable electronic device infections.

Authors:  Michael Koutentakis; Stavros Siminelakis; Panagiotis Korantzopoulos; Anastasios Petrou; Alexandra Petrou; Helen Priavali; Eleftheria Priavali; Andreas Mpakas; Helen Gesouli; Eleftheria Gesouli; Efstratios Apostolakis; Eleftheria Apostolakis; Kosmas Tsakiridis; Paul Zarogoulidis; Nikolaos Katsikogiannis; Ioanna Kougioumtzi; Nikolaos Machairiotis; Theodora Tsiouda; Konstantinos Zarogoulidis
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Major haemorrhage following vascular injury during exchange of cardiac pacemaker leads.

Authors:  A Elrefaey; A Pai
Journal:  Anaesth Rep       Date:  2019-06-11

Review 6.  Extraction of implantable cardiac electronic devices.

Authors:  John Rickard; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Echocardiographic assessment of residuals after transvenous intracardiac lead extraction.

Authors:  Magdalena Poterała; Andrzej Kutarski; Wojciech Brzozowski; Michał Tomaszewski; Leszek Gromadziński; Andrzej Tomaszewski
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-11-16       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Multicentre comparison Of shock efficacy using single-vs. Dual-coil lead systems and Anodal vs. cathodaL polarITY defibrillation in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. The MODALITY study.

Authors:  Maria Stella Baccillieri; Gianni Gasparini; Luca Benacchio; Alessandro Zorzi; Elena Marras; Francesca Zerbo; Luca Tomasi; Diego Vaccari; Gianni Pastore; Carlo Bonanno; Giulio Molon; Gabriele Zanotto; Antonio Fusco; Massimo Carasi; Andrea Zorzi; Vittorio Calzolari; Barbara Ignatiuk; Sergio Cannas; Alessandro Vaglio; Muhamad Al Bunni; Antonella Pedrini; Armando Olivieri; Roberta Rampazzo; Nadia Minicuci; Domenico Corrado; Roberto Verlato
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Permanent pacemaker-associated actinomycetemcomitans endocarditis: A case report.

Authors:  Zhenhong Li; Jennifer Madeo; Shadab Ahmed; Alex Vidal; Amgad Makaryus; Jose Mejia; Tabassum Yasmin
Journal:  Germs       Date:  2013-09-01

10.  Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead-related methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: Importance of heightened awareness.

Authors:  Obiora F Anusionwu; Cheri Smith; Alan Cheng
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2012-07-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.