| Literature DB >> 23448187 |
Victor Pretorius1, Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, J Thomas Heywood, Werner Hafelfinger, Dan E Gutfinger, Neal L Eigler, Charles J Love, William T Abraham.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An implantable left atrial pressure (LAP) monitoring system for guiding the management of patients with advanced heart failure has the potential to require extraction, particularly in the setting of infection. The LAP sensor lead was designed to be suitable for ease of percutaneous extraction using standard techniques for extracting pacemaker and defibrillator leads. The clinical experience, to date, with percutaneous extraction of the LAP sensor lead is presented.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23448187 PMCID: PMC3666087 DOI: 10.1111/pace.12111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol ISSN: 0147-8389 Impact factor: 1.976
Figure 1(A) Illustration of distal tip of the implantable LAP sensor lead showing sensor module with fixation anchors. (B) Illustration of a longitudinal cross section of the sensor module fixated to the interatrial septum with distal fixation anchors covered with tissue and flush with septum. (C) Illustration of a longitudinal cross-section of the sensor module being retracted from the interatrial septum during extraction and causing the distal fixation anchors to fold forward.
Patient and Case Characteristics
| No. | Age | Gender | EF (%) | Indication for Extraction | Implant Site | Implant Duration (days) | Locking Stylet | Excimer LaserSheath |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 69 | F | 34 | Defibrillator infection | Femoral | 1654 | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | 47 | M | 30 | Defibrillator infection | Subclavian | 774 | Yes | No |
| 3 | 59 | M | 35 | Defibrillator infection | Subclavian | 154 | Yes | No |
| 4 | 48 | M | 25 | Sensor replacement | Femoral | 151 | Yes | Yes |
| 5 | 73 | F | 55 | Suspected infected mitral valve prosthesis | Subclavian | 77 | No | No |
EF = ejection fraction.
Figure 2Scout film of chest and abdominal computed tomography scan demonstrating the placement of the ISL and concomitantly implanted pacemaker and defibrillator leads.
Figure 3(A) Fluoroscopy image showing manual traction being applied to ISL with a locking stylet via the femoral vein using the inferior approach. (B) TEE image showing reverse tenting while traction is being applied to the ISL. (C) TEE image showing the absence of a residual atrial septal defect immediately following ISL extraction. ISL = implantable sensor lead; LA = left atrium; RA = right atrium; TEE = transesophageal echocardiography.
Figure 4Photographs of the interatrial septum taken from the right side (A) and left side (B) of the septum immediately following percutaneous extraction of the ISL from a canine that was implanted with the ISL for a period of 572 days. Extraction from the septum was performed using the locking stylet alone. The neoendocardial tissue capsule is seen to remain intact over the implant site. CS = coronary sinus; ISL = implantable sensor lead.
Figure 5Photographs of the interatrial septum taken from the right side (A) and left side (B) of the septum 28 days following percutaneous extraction of the ISL from a canine that was implanted with the ISL for a period of 723 days. Extraction from the septum was performed using both the locking stylet and the excimer laser sheath. No residual septal defect could be identified at 28 days following extraction on intracardiac echocardiography evaluation and on gross anatomical examination A small amount of scar tissue was found to be adherent to the sensor module following extraction (C). CS = coronary sinus; ISL = implantable sensor lead.