Literature DB >> 26534954

Trends in Use and Adverse Outcomes Associated with Transvenous Lead Removal in the United States.

Abhishek Deshmukh1, Nileshkumar Patel2, Peter A Noseworthy2, Achint A Patel2, Nilay Patel2, Shilpkumar Arora2, Suraj Kapa2, Amit Noheria2, Siva Mulpuru2, Apurva Badheka2, Avi Fischer2, James O Coffey2, Yong Mei Cha2, Paul Friedman2, Samuel Asirvatham2, Juan F Viles-Gonzalez2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead removal (TLR) has made significant progress with respect to innovation, efficacy, and safety. However, limited data exist regarding trends in use and adverse outcomes outside the centers of considerable experience for TLR. The aim of our study was to examine use patterns, frequency of adverse events, and influence of hospital volume on complications. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified 91 890 TLR procedures. We investigated common complications including pericardial complications (hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or pericardiocentesis), pneumothorax, stroke, vascular complications (consisting of hemorrhage/hematoma, incidents requiring surgical repair, and accidental arterial puncture), and in-hospital deaths described with TLR, defining them by the validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code. We specifically assessed in-hospital death (2.2%), hemorrhage requiring transfusion (2.6%), vascular complications (2.0%), pericardial complications (1.4%), open heart surgery (0.2%), and postoperative respiratory failure (2.4%). Independent predictors of complications were female sex and device infections. Hospital volume was not independently associated with higher complications. There was a significant rise in overall complication rates over the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall complication rate in patients undergoing TLR was higher than previously reported. Female sex and device infections are associated with higher complications. Hospital volume was not associated with higher complication rates. The number of adverse events in the literature likely underestimates the actual number of complications associated with TLR.
© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  complications; device infection; lead removal

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26534954     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013801

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  19 in total

Review 1.  Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends.

Authors:  Adryan A Perez; Frank W Woo; Darren C Tsang; Roger G Carrillo
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2018-08

Review 2.  Leadless Pacemakers - Implant, Explant and Long-Term Safety and Efficacy Data.

Authors:  Krishna Kancharla; Abhishek J Deshmukh; Paul A Friedman
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2017-08-31

3.  Successful avoidance of superior vena cava injury during transvenous lead extraction using a tandem femoral-superior approach.

Authors:  Joseph Boone Muhlestein; Elizabeth Dranow; Jason Chaney; Leenhapong Navaravong; Benjamin A Steinberg; Roger A Freedman
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 6.779

4.  Experience of cardiac implantable electronic device lead removal from a South African tertiary referral centre.

Authors:  Philasande Mkoko; Nicholus Xolani Mdakane; Glenda Govender; Jacques Scherman; Ashley Chin
Journal:  Cardiovasc J Afr       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 1.167

5.  Effectiveness and Safety of Transvenous Removal of Cardiac Pacing and Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Leads in the Real Clinical Scenario.

Authors:  Roberto Costa; Katia Regina da Silva; Elizabeth Sartori Crevelari; Wagner Tadeu Jurevicius Nascimento; Marcia Mitie Nagumo; Martino Martinelli Filho; Fabio Biscegli Jatene
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Strategies to increase the INGEVITY lead strength during lead extraction procedures based on laboratory bench testing.

Authors:  Pierce Vatterott; Andrew De Kock; Eric F Hammill; Robert Lewis
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 1.912

Review 7.  Safety, Efficacy and Evidence Base for Use of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator.

Authors:  Carmen Adduci; Francesca Palano; Pietro Francia
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2018-03-11       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Risk Factors and Temporal Trends of Complications Associated With Transvenous Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Leads.

Authors:  Jayanthi N Koneru; Paul W Jones; Eric F Hammill; Nicholas Wold; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  Lead extraction complicated by right ventricular pseudoaneurysm: Percutaneous closure with septal occluder device.

Authors:  Matthew J Singleton; Ryan Brunetti; Mark H Schoenfeld; Prashant D Bhave; David X Zhao; S Patrick Whalen
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2019-08-22

10.  Diagnosis and management of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections based on process mapping.

Authors:  Larry M Baddour; Raul Weiss; George E Mark; Mikhael F El-Chami; Mauro Biffi; Vincent Probst; Pier D Lambiase; Marc A Miller; Timothy McClernon; Linda K Hansen; Bradley P Knight
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 1.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.