AIM: The evolution mechanical dilator sheath has been reported to be an effective tool for chronic lead extraction (LE). We examined safety and efficacy of evolution system as compared with laser system. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2005 to 2009, all extractions requiring the use of a powered sheath were performed using the excimer laser system (n = 73). Since 2009, laser system was no longer available and the evolution system was introduced as the first-line method for powered extraction (n = 48). All procedures were performed by a single first operator. Success and complications were defined according to the current guidelines. Patients of the evolution group compared with those of the laser group had a greater number of extracted leads per patient (2.77 vs. 2.4, P = 0.049) and a longer implant duration (101.1 vs. 62.4 months, P = 0.001). Additional use of snare was required in 27.1% of the evolution group and 8.2% of the laser group (P = 0.005). Complete procedural success was achieved in 91.7% of the evolution group and 97.3% of the laser group (P = 0.16). There was also no difference between evolution and laser groups in clinical success (97.9 vs. 98.6%, P = 0.76), as well as regarding major (4.2 vs. 2.7%, P = 0.66) or minor complications (4.2 vs. 5.5%, P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Use of the recently introduced evolution system for LE exhibit acceptably high levels of safety, as well as of procedural and clinical success, although additional use of snare was required more frequently in the evolution compared with the laser group.
AIM: The evolution mechanical dilator sheath has been reported to be an effective tool for chronic lead extraction (LE). We examined safety and efficacy of evolution system as compared with laser system. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2005 to 2009, all extractions requiring the use of a powered sheath were performed using the excimer laser system (n = 73). Since 2009, laser system was no longer available and the evolution system was introduced as the first-line method for powered extraction (n = 48). All procedures were performed by a single first operator. Success and complications were defined according to the current guidelines. Patients of the evolution group compared with those of the laser group had a greater number of extracted leads per patient (2.77 vs. 2.4, P = 0.049) and a longer implant duration (101.1 vs. 62.4 months, P = 0.001). Additional use of snare was required in 27.1% of the evolution group and 8.2% of the laser group (P = 0.005). Complete procedural success was achieved in 91.7% of the evolution group and 97.3% of the laser group (P = 0.16). There was also no difference between evolution and laser groups in clinical success (97.9 vs. 98.6%, P = 0.76), as well as regarding major (4.2 vs. 2.7%, P = 0.66) or minor complications (4.2 vs. 5.5%, P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Use of the recently introduced evolution system for LE exhibit acceptably high levels of safety, as well as of procedural and clinical success, although additional use of snare was required more frequently in the evolution compared with the laser group.
Authors: Wojciech Jacheć; Anna Polewczyk; Maciej Polewczyk; Andrzej Tomasik; Marianna Janion; Andrzej Kutarski Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Sing-Chien Yap; Rohit E Bhagwandien; Dominic A M J Theuns; Yunus Emre Yasar; John de Heide; Mark G Hoogendijk; Charles Kik; Tamas Szili-Torok Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 1.900