Xuebin Li1, Feng Ze2, Long Wang2, Ding Li2, Jiangbo Duan2, Fei Guo3, Cuizhen Yuan2, Yuguang Li4, Jihong Guo5. 1. Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, No. 22, Xinling Road, Shantou City, Guangdong, 515000, China Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen South Street, Beijing, 100044, China. 2. Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen South Street, Beijing, 100044, China Department of Cardiology, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cardiovascular Science, Ministry of Education, 11 Xizhimen South Street, Beijing, 100044, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, No. 22, Xinling Road, Shantou City, Guangdong, 515000, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, No. 22, Xinling Road, Shantou City, Guangdong, 515000, China guojihongpku@163.com docyuguang.li@gmail.com. 5. Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen South Street, Beijing, 100044, China Department of Cardiology, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cardiovascular Science, Ministry of Education, 11 Xizhimen South Street, Beijing, 100044, China guojihongpku@163.com docyuguang.li@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIMS: Data concerning the incidence of venous obstruction in patients referred for lead extraction is limited. Thus, we aimed to assess the incidence of venous obstruction in patients referred for lead extraction and the implications for tool selection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Contrast venography of the access vein was obtained in 202 patients (147 men; mean age, 62.4 ± 14.5 years) scheduled for lead extraction. The indication for lead extraction included infection (n = 145, 72%) and other causes (n = 57, 28%). Two patients with device infection had superior vena caval occlusion. Access vein occlusion occurred in 6 (11%) patients without infection vs. 46 (32%) patients with infection [P = 0.002; odds ratio (OR) 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58-9.87]. No significant differences between occluded and non-occluded patients were seen for age, sex, device type, number of leads, time from implant of the initial lead, or anticoagulation therapy (all P>0.05). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy exposure time were significantly lower in the open group than in the occluded group (P < 0.05). Patients with venous occlusion required more advanced tools for lead extraction, such as dilator sheaths, evolution sheaths, and needle's eye snares (P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Both systemic and local infections are associated with increased risk of access vein occlusion. We found no support for the hypothesis that venous occlusion increases with the number of leads present. Lead extraction was more difficult in patients with venous occlusion, requiring advanced tools and more time. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Data concerning the incidence of venous obstruction in patients referred for lead extraction is limited. Thus, we aimed to assess the incidence of venous obstruction in patients referred for lead extraction and the implications for tool selection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Contrast venography of the access vein was obtained in 202 patients (147 men; mean age, 62.4 ± 14.5 years) scheduled for lead extraction. The indication for lead extraction included infection (n = 145, 72%) and other causes (n = 57, 28%). Two patients with device infection had superior vena caval occlusion. Access vein occlusion occurred in 6 (11%) patients without infection vs. 46 (32%) patients with infection [P = 0.002; odds ratio (OR) 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58-9.87]. No significant differences between occluded and non-occluded patients were seen for age, sex, device type, number of leads, time from implant of the initial lead, or anticoagulation therapy (all P>0.05). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy exposure time were significantly lower in the open group than in the occluded group (P < 0.05). Patients with venous occlusion required more advanced tools for lead extraction, such as dilator sheaths, evolution sheaths, and needle's eye snares (P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Both systemic and local infections are associated with increased risk of access vein occlusion. We found no support for the hypothesis that venous occlusion increases with the number of leads present. Lead extraction was more difficult in patients with venous occlusion, requiring advanced tools and more time. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Andrzej Cacko; Eliza Kozyra-Pydyś; Monika Gawałko; Grzegorz Opolski; Marcin Grabowski Journal: J Vasc Access Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 2.283
Authors: S A Ayvazyan; A B Gamzaev; A A Palagina; K G Gorshenin; S I Buslaeva; A A Seregin; N S Konovalov; O V Sapelnikov Journal: Sovrem Tekhnologii Med Date: 2021-02-28
Authors: Caio Marcos de Moraes Albertini; Katia Regina da Silva; Joaquim Maurício da Motta Leal Filho; Elizabeth Sartori Crevelari; Martino Martinelli Filho; Francisco Cesar Carnevale; Roberto Costa Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 2.000
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