Hai-Xia Fu1,2, Xin-Miao Huang2,3, L I Zhong2,4, Michael J Osborn2, Samuel J Asirvatham2, Raul E Espinosa2, Peter A Brady2, Hon-Chi Lee2, Kevin L Greason2, Larry M Baddour5, Rizwan M Sohail5, Nancy G Acker2, David O Hodge6, Paul A Friedman2, Yong-Mei Cha2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Henan, People's Republic of China. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Cardiology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 6. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Removal of an entire cardiovascular implantable electronic device is associated with morbidity and mortality. We sought to establish a risk classification scheme according to the outcomes of transvenous lead removal in a single center, with the goal of using that scheme to guide electrophysiology lab versus operating room extraction. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing transvenous lead removal from January 2001 to October 2012 at Mayo Clinic were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 1,378 leads were removed from 652 (age 64 ± 17 years, M 68%) patients undergoing 702 procedures. Mean (standard deviation) lead age was 57.6 (58.8) months. Forty-four percent of leads required laser-assisted extraction. Lead duration (P < 0.001) and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead (P < 0.001) were associated with the need for laser extraction and procedure failure (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.02). The major complication rate was 1.9% and was significantly associated with longer lead duration (odds ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.3; P < 0.001). High-risk patients (with a >10-year-old pacing or a >5-year-old ICD lead) had significantly higher major events than moderate-risk (with pacing lead 1-10 years old or ICD lead 1-5 years old) and low-risk (any lead ≤1-year-old) patients (5.3%, 1.2%, and 0%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous lead removal is highly successful, with few serious procedural complications. We propose a risk stratification scheme that may categorize patients as low, moderate, and high risk for lead extraction. Such a strategy may guide which extractions are best performed in the operating room.
BACKGROUND: Removal of an entire cardiovascular implantable electronic device is associated with morbidity and mortality. We sought to establish a risk classification scheme according to the outcomes of transvenous lead removal in a single center, with the goal of using that scheme to guide electrophysiology lab versus operating room extraction. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing transvenous lead removal from January 2001 to October 2012 at Mayo Clinic were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 1,378 leads were removed from 652 (age 64 ± 17 years, M 68%) patients undergoing 702 procedures. Mean (standard deviation) lead age was 57.6 (58.8) months. Forty-four percent of leads required laser-assisted extraction. Lead duration (P < 0.001) and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead (P < 0.001) were associated with the need for laser extraction and procedure failure (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.02). The major complication rate was 1.9% and was significantly associated with longer lead duration (odds ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.3; P < 0.001). High-risk patients (with a >10-year-old pacing or a >5-year-old ICD lead) had significantly higher major events than moderate-risk (with pacing lead 1-10 years old or ICD lead 1-5 years old) and low-risk (any lead ≤1-year-old) patients (5.3%, 1.2%, and 0%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous lead removal is highly successful, with few serious procedural complications. We propose a risk stratification scheme that may categorize patients as low, moderate, and high risk for lead extraction. Such a strategy may guide which extractions are best performed in the operating room.
Authors: Sara Pichtchoulin; Ingrid Selmeryd; Elisabeth Freyhult; Pär Hedberg; Jonas Selmeryd Journal: Ups J Med Sci Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 2.384
Authors: F Daniel Ramirez; Abdullah Almutairi; Ellamae Stadnick; Girish M Nair; Mouhannad M Sadek; David H Birnie Journal: HeartRhythm Case Rep Date: 2016-04-21
Authors: Holly Gonzales; Travis D Richardson; Jay A Montgomery; George H Crossley; Christopher R Ellis Journal: J Innov Card Rhythm Manag Date: 2019-12-15
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: Wojciech Jacheć; Anna Polewczyk; Maciej Polewczyk; Andrzej Tomasik; Andrzej Kutarski Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 4.241