Literature DB >> 25661776

Extraction of superfluous device leads: A comparison with removal of infected leads.

Xin-Miao Huang1, Haixia Fu2, Michael J Osborn3, Samuel J Asirvatham3, Christopher J McLeod3, Michael Glickson4, Nancy G Acker3, Paul A Friedman3, Yong-Mei Cha5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although increasingly more lead extraction was performed for superfluous leads, the extraction of such leads remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes and complications of transvenous extraction of superfluous leads in a single center in the era of laser technology.
METHODS: Four hundred eighty transvenous lead extraction procedures performed from January 2001 through October 2012 at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 123 procedures were performed for superfluous functional or nonfunctional leads. Data were collected from electronic medical records and an institutional database of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.
RESULTS: A total of 167 superfluous leads (mean [SD] lead duration 53 [53] months; median 34 months) were removed during the 123 procedures. Forty-one percent of procedures were for lead malfunction. The procedural complete-success rate was 96.7%. Major complications occurred in 1 patient (0.8%), who had a superior vena cava tear that required thoracotomy. Superfluous leads had been implanted for a shorter period of time than infected leads (mean [SD] 53 [53] vs 81 [59] months; P < .001). The procedural complete-success rate was higher for the removal of superfluous leads than for leads associated with infection (97% vs 92%; P = .05).
CONCLUSION: Transvenous extraction of superfluous leads is highly successful, with few procedural complications. Extraction of superfluous leads at the time of device upgrade or lead revision is considered reasonable to avoid the increasing risk of extraction complications with lead aging.
Copyright © 2015 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiovascular implantable electronic device; Complication; Lead extraction; Outcome; Tricuspid regurgitation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25661776     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  4 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.  Differences in laser lead extraction of infected vs. non-infected leads.

Authors:  Simon Pecha; Liesa Castro; Julia Vogler; Matthias Linder; Nils Gosau; Stephan Willems; Hermann Reichenspurner; Samer Hakmi
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Consequences of Retained Defibrillator and Pacemaker Leads After Heart Transplantation-An Underrecognized Problem.

Authors:  Luise Holzhauser; Teruhiko Imamura; Hemal M Nayak; Nitasha Sarswat; Gene Kim; Jayant Raikhelkar; Sara Kalantari; Amit Patel; David Onsager; Tae Song; Takeyoshi Ota; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 5.712

4.  Reuse of a 20-year-old lead: An abandoned lead reactivated.

Authors:  Breno Bernardes de Souza; Noel G Boyle
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2015-08-06
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.