Literature DB >> 22132903

Large, single-center experience in transvenous coronary sinus lead extraction: procedural outcomes and predictors for mechanical dilatation.

Andrea di Cori1, Maria Grazia Bongiorni, Giulio Zucchelli, Luca Segreti, Stefano Viani, Raffaele de Lucia, Luca Paperini, Ezio Soldati.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate procedural outcomes of coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction, focusing on predictors and need for mechanical dilatation (MD) in the event that manual traction (MT) is ineffective.
METHODS: The study assessed results in 145 consecutive patients (age 69 ± 10 years; 121 men)--a total of 147 CS pacing leads--who underwent transvenous CS lead removal between January 2000 and March 2010.
RESULTS: All leads but one (99%) (implantation time 29 ± 25 months) were successfully removed. MT was effective in 103 (70%), and MD was necessary in the remaining 44 (30%) procedures. In multivariate analyses, unipolar design (odds ratio [OR] 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-7.7; P = 0.005) and noninfective indication (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-13, P = 0.002) were independent predictors for MD (P < 0.0001), with a predictive trend for prior cardiac surgery (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.98-5.26; P = 0.06). Five (3.4%) complex procedures required a transfemoral vein approach (TFA) or repeat procedure. No deaths occurred, and there was one major complication (0.7%), cardiac tamponade, after MT. No complication predictors were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: CS leads were safely and effectively removed in nearly all patients, and 70% were removed with MT alone; 30% required MD. Preoperative predictors suggesting the need for MD or TFA were noninfective indication and unipolar lead design. Complications were rare, and there was no predictable pattern among MT or MD removal techniques. ©2011, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22132903     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03273.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  6 in total

Review 1.  Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction.

Authors:  Oussama Wazni; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  Safety and Effectiveness of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Infected Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Is It More Risky than Extraction of Other Systems?

Authors:  Paweł Stefańczyk; Dorota Nowosielecka; Anna Polewczyk; Łukasz Tułecki; Konrad Tomków; Wojciech Jacheć; Ewa Lewicka; Andrzej Tomaszewski; Andrzej Kutarski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  A "tetra-axial" system in transfemoral lead extraction.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Isawa; Takashi Yamada; Taku Honda; Kazuhiro Yamaya; Tatsushi Ootomo
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2017-05-10

4.  Editorial: What makes transvenous extraction more difficult?

Authors:  Hideo Okamura
Journal:  J Cardiol Cases       Date:  2015-12-04

5.  Safety and effectiveness of coronary sinus leads extraction - single high-volume centre experience.

Authors:  Andrzej W Kutarski; Wojciech Jacheć; Łukasz Tułecki; Konrad Tomków; Paweł Stefańczyk; Wojciech Borzęcki; Dorota Nowosielecka; Marek Czajkowski; Maciej Polewczyk; Anna Polewczyk
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 1.426

6.  Coronary Sinus Lead Removal: A Comparison between Active and Passive Fixation Leads.

Authors:  Simon Pecha; Charles Kennergren; Yalin Yildirim; Nils Gosau; Ali Aydin; Stephan Willems; Hendrik Treede; Hermann Reichenspurner; Samer Hakmi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.